Court File and Parties
1384-01-R A. Gourley of CUPE Local 3566 Technical Unit, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Responding Party v. Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 31, 2001
Decision
1This is an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
2A representation vote has been held and the majority of votes were cast against the responding party (“the union”). The union alleges that the evidence submitted in support of the application was improperly obtained or obtained under false pretences. In response to this the employer contends that section 63(13) precludes consideration of evidence of employee wishes submitted with the application. The relevant section to the Board’s consideration of this issue are as follows:
- (4) The application filed with the Board shall be accompanied by a list of the names of the employees in the bargaining unit who have expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union and evidence of the wishes of those employees, but the applicant shall not give this information to the employer or trade union.
(13) When disposing of an application, the Board shall not consider any challenge to the information provided under subsection (4).
3In what way if at all this allegation can be considered by the Board in light of the Act can be raised before the panel scheduled to hear this application.
4The union further alleges that there has been an appearance of employer interference and cites facts in support of that allegation. The employer asserts that these allegations do not constitute a prima facie case and requests that the allegations be dismissed. This matter may also be raised before the panel scheduled to hear this application.
5Finally counsel for the employer requests that the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada be given notice of the application as their interests may be affected by the application. The employer does not indicate in what way these rights may be affected and it is not readily apparent to the Board how this is so. The only reference to this association arises in paragraph 4 of the union’s response wherein it asserts that:
- It has come to CUPE’s attention that the members when allegedly signing to decertify, were led to believe that they were signing to join another union, PIPS. Consequently, their support was improperly obtained and obtained under false pretences.
6This is the allegation that is the subject of the employer’s section 63(13) objection referred to above. In whatever way the panel hearing this matter disposes of the allegation and the employer’s section 63(13) objection, it does not appear that PIPS has any material interest in this application. It will not be joined to the proceedings now. The issue of PIPS’s joinder can be dealt with if necessary by the panel hearing the matter.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board