Ontario Labour Relations Board
0359-00-R Beachville Lime Limited, Applicant v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 3264 and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 774, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Robert J. Atkinson, Gord Adam, Steve Brookshaw and Suzanne Ritzler for the applicant; David Wright, Rick Cecchin, Todd Cameron and Tim Hannigan for Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 3264; S.B.D. Wahl, E. Dukes, Lou Voigt and Ken Furtney for Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 774.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 27, 2000
Decision
This is an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act').
By decision dated July 5, 2000 a differently constituted panel of the Board, pursuant to the parties’ minutes of settlement dated June 23, 2000, declared that a sale of a business had taken place, that there existed a conflict between the bargaining rights of the two responding parties, and that there had been an intermingling of employees of the two bargaining units for which the responding parties held bargaining rights. On the consent of the parties, the Board ordered a representation vote for August 10 and 23, 2000.
The results of the representation vote are: 108 ballots cast in favour or the responding party, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 3264 (“Local 3264”); 80 ballots cast in favour of the responding party Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 774 (“Local 774”); and 3 ballots segregated and not counted.
At the hearing of this matter on October 12, 2000, Local 774 asked the Board to set aside the results of the representation vote. It alleged that Local 3264 and the applicant employer engaged in various unfair labour practices which cast serious doubt on whether the wishes of the employees were reflected in the vote results.
Regardless of the Board’s determination on the issue of a second representation vote, Local 774 also requested that the Board decide which of the Local 774 and the Local 3264 collective agreements should apply in the successor employer’s workplace, and the relative seniority of the employees.
At the outset, an issue was raised regarding the appropriate bargaining unit in this matter. The parties agreed that the Board should make a ruling on this issue, and then move on to consider motions of Local 3264 and the applicant that Local 774 had failed to establish a prima facie case for a second representation vote.
With respect to the appropriate bargaining unit, counsel for Local 774 took the position that that issue had not yet been finally determined, and that the fashioning of the description of a single bargaining unit must include a consideration of the protection of the rights of the employees. Counsel for Local 3264 and the applicant took the position that the parties had already agreed to an appropriate bargaining unit in the June 23, 2000 minutes of settlement, and that the Board had previously determined that matter in its July 5, 2000 decision referred to above.
The Board considered the submissions of the parties and ruled orally that, having regard to the minutes of settlement of June 23, 2000 and the Board’s decision of July 5, 2000 the issue of the appropriate bargaining unit had been finally determined. The appropriate bargaining unit, as determined by the Board on July 5, 2000, is:
all employees of Beachville Lime Ltd. at its operations in the Townships of Zorra and Southwest Oxford, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foremen, office staff and non-bargaining unit stores and laboratory staff.
- The Board then went on to hear and consider the submissions of all the parties regarding the prima facie motions referred to above. Subsequently the Board issued the following oral ruling:
The Board is of the view that the prima facie motions of Local 3264 and the applicant succeed. Accepting without deciding that all the allegations contained in the August 30 letter of Mr. Steinberg in connection with the events leading up to the representation vote are true, the Board is not convinced that the results of the representation vote do not represent the true wishes of the employees who cast ballots.
Accordingly, the results of the representation vote are confirmed and, pursuant to the June 23 agreement of the parties [the minutes of settlement], the Board declares Local 3264 the bargaining agent.
The Board indicated that written reasons for the ruling on the prima facie motions would follow. It adjourned the remainder of the proceeding on October 12, 2000, in order for the parties to consider options for settlement, and directed counsel for Local 774 to advise the Registrar whether further hearing dates would be required in the event that there remained outstanding issues for determination.
By letter dated October 26, 2000, counsel for Local 774 advised that there remain issues for determination, and requests that the Board schedule a peremptory hearing and abridge the time for notice of hearing in order to deal with these issues. Counsel for the applicant and counsel for Local 3246 responded in writing. Both argue that the remaining issues can be decided without a hearing, and both urge that a determination of these issues be made quickly. Counsel for the applicant argues in the alternative that if a hearing is ordered, it should be scheduled on an expedited basis.
I am of the view that there should be a hearing of the remaining issues, and that the hearing should be scheduled on an expedited basis. Accordingly, a hearing will take place on November 7, 2000, at 505 University Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board