National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. St. Joseph’s General Hospital, Elliot Lake (Full Time)
1425-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. St. Joseph’s General Hospital, Elliot Lake (Full Time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF MARILYN SILVERMAN, VICE-CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER G. MCMENEMY; August 23, 2000
This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated August 21, 2000 wherein the majority of the Board ordered the taking of a representation vote to be held on August 23, 2000. Further the majority order that the ballot box be sealed pending the determination of a timeliness objection advanced by the intervenor.
The intervenor requests that the Board quash the decision to order the taking of the representation vote.
The intervenor submits that the Board committed an error of law, exceeded its jurisiction and/or exercised its discretion improperly by directing the holding of a representation vote in the face of a timeliness objection. Further the intervenor submits that it is a breach of natural justice and fairness to direct the taking of the representation vote in the absence of complete submissions on the timeliness issue.
Having considered the circumstances of this application, the Board ordered the taking of the representation vote within the usual 5 day timeframe. That order was made in the exercise of the Board’s statutory powers under the Act. In the event that the application is ultimately found to be untimely then the application will be dismissed.
The request for reconsideration is denied.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the majority
CONCURRING OPINION OF BOARD MEMBER G. MCMENEMY: August 23, 2000
While it is seldom and rare that I provide a comment to cases that I adjudicate, this is one that I feel I must.
The termination application noted two issues that the SEIU felt were of importance and had to be determined before the vote could be held. One was the conduct of the CAW in the gathering of the cards and the other was the issue of timeliness of the application. The issues in my opinion are important to the success of the application. However, the time needed to adjudicate these issues would cause labour relations concerns for all of the parties in this application. Thus I agreed with Vice-Chair Silverman to order the vote be held and the box sealed.
If Ms. Rundle is correct (I do not believe that she is), the months and months of litigation to determine the timeliness issue will cause uncertainty for St. Joseph Hospital and its employees while waiting. This can not be right.
The Chair of the Board in his decision Penegal Trim and Supply Ltd. OLRB Rep. March/April 332 dealt with this issue of the vote. I am referring to paragraphs 11 to 14. Chair MacDowell speaks to the issue of the need to get the vote in the can (my words). If not, as Chair MacDowell points out “it is virtually impossible to either reconstruct the employee list as of 1997, or conduct a representation vote in anything like the environment that obtained in 1997”. The “speedy vote” is needed in this case.
This decision does not in my opinion effect the eventual outcome of the termination application. But it does create labour stability in the work place pending the litigation of the issue. I cannot understand how any of the parties fail to see that as the preferred route.
“G. McMenemy”
DISSENT OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RUNDLE; August 23, 2000
I reiterate my dissent of August 21, 2000.
“J. A. Rundle”