International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Lafarge Canada Inc.
1464-99-R International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, Applicant v. Lafarge Canada Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Gail Misra, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and A. Haward.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 20, 2000
The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: "Lafarge Canada Inc.".
The applicant filed a statement of desire to make representations with the Board within the time fixed by the Board following the taking of the representation vote pursuant to the Board's direction of August 20, 1999.
3 The applicant (the “union”) asserted in its submission of August 31, 1999 that it was concerned that the location for voting had been changed after the Notice of Vote had already been posted. It appears that the Notice stated that a poll would be held at the “Job Site Trailer, Highway #24 and Highway 403” in Brantford. On August 20, 1999, before the vote was held the responding party advised the Board that the construction trailer was actually located at Oak Park Rd. and Highway 403 at the Lafarge Asphalt Plant. It is unclear to the Board whether there was in fact a trailer at Highway #24 and Highway 403. In any event, the vote was held at the construction trailer on Oak Park on the scheduled date.
The union also made some other unspecified allegations and indicated to the Board that it intended to file a section 11 and section 96 complaint within the week. To date it appears that nothing further has been filed.
The one assertion made by the union which the Board can address is that because of the Board Officer’s agreement to the change in location, there was a denial of an opportunity for all employees to cast a ballot in the representation vote. The union did not identify who or how many persons were denied the opportunity to vote. On the Board’s review of the file it appears that the union believed there were eight persons who may have been at work on the date of application and the employer asserted there were 10. Eleven persons voted, and that included persons on the voters’ list. It is therefore clear that the change in location had no effect on the potential voter turnout.
In the circumstances the Board is satisfied that the union has raised no allegation which, even if proved true, would change the result of the application.
On the taking of the representation vote directed by the Board, not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in favour of the applicant.
The application is therefore dismissed.
The Board will not consider another application for certification by the applicant, the designated employee bargaining agency of which the applicant is an affiliated bargaining agent, or the affiliated bargaining agents, as the bargaining agent of the employees in the bargaining unit until one year elapses from the date of this decision.
The Registrar will destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote taken in this matter following the expiration of 30 days from the date of this decision unless a statement requesting that the ballots should not be destroyed is received by the Board from one of the parties before the expiration of such 30 day period.
The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision immediately, adjacent to the "Notice of Vote and of Meeting" posted previously. These copies must remain posted for a period of 30 days.
“Gail Misra”
for the Board