Society of Energy Professionals v. Toronto Hydro Corporation, 2000 CanLII 9318

Society of Energy Professionals v. Toronto Hydro Corporation

0398-00-R Society of Energy Professionals, Applicant v. Toronto Hydro Corporation, Responding Party.

BEFORE: Russell Goodfellow, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and

R. R. Montague.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 10, 2000

1. This is an application for certification.

2. The Board has no record of the applicant having been found to be a “trade union” within the meaning of the Act. The applicant is directed to file any and all documents necessary to support its claim to such status forthwith. The responding party is directed to advise the Board of its position on whether the Board should make the status determination on the basis of the documents filed.

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 professional engineers employed by the Toronto Hydro Corporation in the City of Toronto, save and except Managers and persons above the rank of Manager.

5. The vote will be held on May 12, 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 May 5, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on May 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.

7. There may be a dispute between the parties as to: the identity of the employer; whether supervisors should be included in the bargaining unit; and the definition of engineers. Any employee who may be affected by such a possible dispute 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. The employer has indicated that the unit applied for “could not be” appropriate. The Board finds that it “could be” appropriate. The employer has given notice under section 8.1 of the Act. That notice is not numerically relevant. Accordingly, the ballot box will not be sealed.

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 Board