Ontario Labour Relations Board
2507-00-R Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Applicant v. All-Care Health Services Limited, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 27, 2000
1This is an application for certification.
2The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
3It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant (see section 8(3) of the Act), that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
4The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of All-Care Health Services Limited located in the Counties of Peterborough, Haliburton, Victoria, Northumberland, Nipissing, Renfrew, Hastings, Lennox and Addington, Prince Edward, Frontenac, Lanark and Leeds and Grenville, save and except supervisors, and persons above the rank of supervisor, registered nurses, service coordinators and office and clerical staff.
5The vote will be held on December 6, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
6All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on November 22, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on November 22, 2000, the certification application filing date, include employees who were not at work on that date, so long as there is a reasonable expectation of their return to employment.
7There is a dispute as to the proper description of the bargaining unit. The responding party asserts that the applicant has improperly described the geographic scope of the proposed bargaining unit by naming all of the counties in which employees perform services instead of the geographic area where the employer has situated its operations. In addition the responding party has taken the position that in event there should two bargaining units, one relating to “all Home Support employees of All-Care Health Services Limited that operate out of the City of Kingston …” and one relating to “all Home Support employees of All-Care Health Services Limited that operate out of the City of Belleville and the Town of Bancroft…”. In the circumstances the ballots cast by employees operating out of the City of Kingston should be segregated, and the ballots cast by employees working out of the City of Belleville and the Town of Bancroft should be segregated..
8There is a further dispute between the parties as to whether the position of Registered Practical Nurse should be included in the bargaining unit. If any individual holding such a position wishes to cast a ballot, the individual shall identify himself or herself as occupying a disputed position and such individual shall then be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot cast by such an individual shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree. Such ballots should be further segregated as to whether the disputed employee operates out of the City of Kingston or operates out of the City of Belleville and the Town of Bancroft.
9Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
10The employer has given notice under section 8.1 that it disagrees with the description of the bargaining unit included in the application for certification.
11The employer has given the Board timely notice under section 8.1 of the Act that it disagrees with the union’s estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit included in the application for certification. Upon a review of the material filed with the application for certification and the employer’s response, the Board cannot be absolutely certain that the percentage of the individuals who appear to be members of the trade union is 40 percent or more in the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant.
12In all of these circumstances the Board directs that the ballot box for the representation vote be sealed. The ballots will not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
13In light of concerns regarding notice of the vote getting to all persons who may be affected by this application, the Board directs the responding party employer to provide the Board with labels listing the name and address of each affected employee in the proposed bargaining unit. The labels are to be delivered to the Board by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2000. The Board will then send each employee a “Notice of Vote and of Hearing”.
14The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to each of the posted copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
15Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, other than status disputes, including any matters relating to the representation vote, must file a detailed statement of representations with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received by the Board within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken. Representations with respect to any status dispute must be made in accordance with the directions provided in Information Bulletin No. 4: Status Disputes in Certification Applications (Non-Construction).
16The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board