1044-01-R Public Service Alliance of Canada, Applicant v. Canadian Corps of Commissionaires – Ottawa Division, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF ANTHONY BROWN, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER D. A. PATTERSON; July 11, 2001.
This is an application for certification.
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”).
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.
The responding party disputes the applicant’s estimate of the number of employees in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, the responding party proposes a different bargaining unit from that proposed by the applicant and it contends that the applicant’s bargaining unit could not be appropriate. It gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act. The responding party submits that the bargaining unit should include the employees at all of the locations within its Northern Ontario Region, whereas the applicant has included only two areas within the Region. The responding party submits that its proposed unit would be more coherent and inclusive given the structure of its operations and the interchange of personnel throughout the Northern Ontario Region. The parties agree that Post Supervisors should be excluded from the bargaining unit. The responding party agrees with the applicant that some Shift Supervisors should be included in the bargaining unit, with the exception of Shift Supervisors in the rank of Sergeant and above.
After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant as against the information provided by the responding party, the Board finds that the numerical difference between the parties is not significant. The applicant has established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit for the purposes of obtaining a representation vote and having that vote counted.
The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (Ottawa Division) employed in the company’s Northern Ontario Region of Operations, save and except Post Supervisors and persons above the rank of Post Supervisor.
The vote will be held on July 16 and 17, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on July 6, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on July 6, 2001, 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.
The ballots cast by employees working in the District of Temiscaming or in the District of Sudbury (including the City of Greater Sudbury) shall be segregated from the ballots cast by employees working in the District of Nipissing, the District of Cochrane, and the District of Algoma. The ballots cast by employees working in the District of Nipissing, the District of Cochrane, and the District of Algoma shall not be counted unless the Board so orders or the parties agree.
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.
There may be a dispute as to whether the position of Shift Supervisor in the rank of Sergeant or above should be included in the bargaining unit. If any individual holding such a position wishes to cast a ballot, the individual shall identify himself or herself as occupying a disputed position and such individual shall then be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot cast by such an individual shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
The applicant proposes that the representation vote be conducted by “mail-in ballot”. The responding party objects to this proposal. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Board is not of the view that there is a need for a mail-in ballot. The Board will adhere to its usual practice and timelines, while recognizing that the affected employees are located across a wide geographical area.
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.
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).
15 The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Anthony Brown”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RUNDLE: July 11, 2001
I dissent.
A plain reading of the sections 8 and 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to seal the ballot box, when as in the instant matter an employer has given notice that it disagrees with the trade union’s estimate of the number of individuals in the unit described in the application for certification.
Subsection 8.1(4) requires the Board to seal the ballot box unless the trade union and the employee agree otherwise. Accordingly, I would have directed the ballot box to be sealed.
“J. A. Rundle”