1787-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Tora Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Russell Goodfellow, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and
R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF RUSSELL GOODFELLOW, VICE-CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER
R. R. MONTAGUE; September 22, 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 Tora Inc., in the City of St. Catharines, Ontario, save and except assistant plant manager, persons above the rank of assistant plant manager, office, clerical and sales staff.
5The vote will be held on September 26, 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 September 18, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on September 18, 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 may be a dispute between the parties as to: the correct name of the responding party; whether the appropriate level of managerial exclusion is “production supervisors” and above or “assistant plant manager” and above; and whether “Quality Assurance”, “Shipping and Receiving” and “developmentally challenged employees” should be included in the bargaining unit. Any individual affected by these possible disputes shall be entitled to cast a ballot but their ballots shall be segregated and not counted until the Board orders or the parties agree. The responding party has given notice under section 8.1 of the Act. It has also indicated that the bargaining unit could not be appropriate. The Board finds that the bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the section 8.1 notice is not numerically relevant. Accordingly, the ballot box will not be sealed.
8Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
9The 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.
10Any 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).
11The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Russell Goodfellow”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; September 22, 2000
The employer has pleaded that section 8.1 applies. As a result, there should be no vote until the issues are dealt with at a hearing. If a vote is ordered, then at the least, the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.
“J. A. Ronson”