0730-00-R United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Applicant v. Metro Taxi Ltd. c.o.b. as Capital Taxi, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 8, 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.
4There is a discrepancy between the union’s estimate in the Form A-4 and the estimate in paragraph 4 of the application. The difference is immaterial and need not be pursued further.
5The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Metro Taxi Ltd. c.o.b. as Capital Taxi operating as taxi owners and/or taxi drivers in the City of Ottawa, save and except supervisors, dispatchers, telephone staff, multi-car/multi-plate owners, persons above the rank of supervisor and office and clerical staff .
6The vote will be held on June 12, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
7All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on June 5, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on June 5, 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.
8Comparing the proposed bargaining units of the applicant and the responding party, there seems to be a difference in form and description rather than substance. If there remains any dispute in regard to this issue it may be addressed at a hearing. However, there may be a dispute between the parties as to whether employees who are taxi drivers who are not licensed to operate in the City of Ottawa 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.
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 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.
11Any 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).
12The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board