Hotel, Hospitality and Casino Workers Union v. Niagara Resorts Incorporated Operating as The Hampton Inn
1740-00-R Hotel, Hospitality and Casino Workers Union, Applicant v. Niagara Resorts Incorporated Operating as The Hampton Inn, 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 18, 2000
[1]. This is an application for certification.
[2]. The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
[3]. It 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.
[4]. The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Niagara Resorts Inc. c.o.b. as Hampton Inn, in the City of Niagara Falls, save and except Supervisors, persons above the rank of Supervisor and office staff.
[5]. The vote will be held on September 20, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
[6]. All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on September 13, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on September 13, 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.
[7]. There may be a dispute between the parties as to the appropriate exclusions from the bargaining unit and as to whether the street address should be included in the bargaining unit description. The applicant has proposed that “night auditors”, “bartenders”, and “front desk employees” be excluded. In the event that any employee affected by these possible disputes wishes to cast a ballot, she or he shall be entitled to do so but his or her ballot shall be segregated and not counted until the Board orders or the parties agree. The responding party has also given notice under section 8.1 of the Act and indicated that the bargaining unit description proposed in the application “could not be” appropriate. The Board finds that the description of the bargaining unit proposed in the application could be appropriate. Further, given the membership evidence accompanying the application, the notice under section 8.1 is not numerically relevant. Accordingly, the ballot box will not be sealed on that basis.
[8]. Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
[9]. The 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.
[10]. Any 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).
[11]. The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Russell Goodfellow”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; September 15, 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”