3275-99-R Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Applicant v. Falls Management Company c.o.b. Casino Niagara, 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; February 10, 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.
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 Security Officers employed by Falls Management Company c.o.b. Casino Niagara in the Regional Municipality of Niagara in the City of Niagara Falls save and except surveillance officers, Managers and persons above the rank of Managers.
5The vote will be held on February 14, 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 February 7, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on February 7, 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 are a number of issues in dispute. First, the responding party has identified the persons to be included in the bargaining unit as “Security Associates” rather than “Security Officers”. Second, the name of the employer of the employees in the bargaining unit proposed in the response is described as “Complex Services Inc.” rather than “Falls Management Company c.o.b. Casino Niagara”. Third, the geographic description identified in the response is “its Casino Niagara locations at the Casino and the Associate Centre in the City of Niagara Falls” rather than “the Regional Municipality of Niagara in the City of Niagara Falls”. Fourth, the responding party has listed the appropriate level of managerial exclusion as “Supervisors” and above rather than “Managers” and above. (However, the parties appear to agree that “Surveillance Staff” or “surveillance officers” are not included in the bargaining unit.) Any employee who may be affected by the foregoing disputes shall be entitled to cast a ballot but his or her ballot shall be segregated and not counted until the Board orders or the parties agree.
8The responding party has indicated that the bargaining unit applied for could not be appropriate because it includes managers. The Board finds that the bargaining unit proposed in the application could be appropriate. The responding party has also raised an objection under section 14(2) of the Act. This objection can be dealt with, as necessary, following the vote. The responding party also appears to suggest that no vote should be held or, if a vote is held, that the ballot box should be sealed because, it states, the applicant is not a “registered supplier” within the meaning of the Gaming Control Act, 1992. The Board disagrees: a vote will be held and the ballot box will not be sealed. The Gaming Control Act, 1992 issue can be addressed, as necessary, following the vote and the counting of the ballots.
9Finally, the responding party has requested that a vote be held over the course of two days, rather than one. The Board will not so order. However, the voting times will be extended beyond those initially requested by the applicant. The Board does so in light of its obligation to provide employees with adequate opportunity to vote and in view of the limitations on its resources.
10Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
11The 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.
12Any 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).
13The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Russell Goodfellow
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; February 10, 2000
I would have directed that the ballot box be sealed pending the determination of the applicant’s status as a “registered supplier” under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.
“J. A. Ronson”