2502-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Strongco Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and
D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 12, 2000
1. This is an application for certification.
2. Following the representation vote on November 25, 1999, an employee of the responding party (the “company”) filed written submissions protesting certain aspects of the vote and requesting a second representation vote by way of remedial relief. The complaints of this employee relate to the following:
(i) the agreement of the parties not to count the segregated ballots of two company employees, and a corresponding agreement of the parties to count the segregated ballot of another;
(ii) an allegation that two employees not placed on the voters’ list would have requested to vote had they not been fearful that their wishes would have been revealed;
(iii) an allegation of the removal of unspecified notices from the private boxes of road technician, resulting in their lack of awareness of the certification application until the company posted the notice of application, and then lack of awareness of the date of vote until it was “announced” by the company;
(iv) an allegation that because the number of membership cards signed in support of the application for certification exceeded the number of votes cast in favour of the union, coercion and pressure were applied by persons unspecified.
3. By decision dated December 9, 1999, the Board invited submissions from the applicant and responding party with regard to the employee’s concerns. Both parties responded on December 15, 1999.
4. After reviewing all the materials submitted, the Board is satisfied that the application for certification should proceed in the normal course. The allegations by the employee set out in paragraph 2 above do not warrant interference with the results of the representation vote, for the following reasons. First, the parties in a certification application are entitled, in the absence of an unlawful purpose, to reach agreement on the voters list, the parameters of the bargaining unit (and inclusions and exclusions from same) and the segregation of ballots, as well as the counting or non-counting of those segregated ballots. In the instant case, it appears that the arrangements of the parties were overseen by a Labour Relations Officer of the Board. There is no allegation of any improper purpose on the part of the parties to the application. Second, the allegations concerning the two employees who did not ask to vote because of alleged fears of disclosure of their wishes are without foundation. To the extent any employee had such a concern, it is up to that person to raise it with the Labour Relations Officer conducting the vote or to bring it to the Board’s attention following the vote. No such concerns were raised by the individuals who allegedly had the concerns. Moreoever, there was no information indicating the rationale for such concerns. Third, with respect to notice of the vote, the company posted the appropriate notices in the workplace. There is no further obligation to ensure that each and every employee receive personal notice of the proceedings or the vote. In any event, to the extent notices were allegedly removed, there appears to have been no discernible effect on voter turnout. Finally, the allegation concerning the proportion of the number of membership cards signed to number of votes cast in favour of the applicant does not lead, in the absence of any other information, to inferences that coercion was exercised against employees during the organizing campaign.
5. Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board finds that:
all employees of Strongco Inc., in Mississauga, Ontario, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office, clerical and sales staff,
constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.
6. On the taking of the representation vote directed by the Board, more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in favour of the applicant.
7. A certificate will issue to the applicant.
8. 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.
9. Meeting and hearing dates set previously are hereby cancelled.
10. The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision immediately, adjacent to all copies of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" posted previously. These copies must remain posted until the date that had been set for the hearing.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board