National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company
0176-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Responding Party v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 393W, Intervenors.
0178-01-U National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 385, Applicant v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 and Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Responding Parties.
0179-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 385, Applicant v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175, Responding Party v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Intervenor.
0203-01-R United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Applicant v. Coco-Cola Bottling Company, Responding Party v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Intervenor.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 18, 2001
[1]. The Board is in receipt of a Request for Reconsideration dated June 29, 2001. That request seeks to have the Board:
(a) revoke its decision to order a representation vote on June 26, 2001 until such time as the Board determines whether it has the jurisdiction to order any representation vote or decides that it is appropriate to order such a vote and is able to determine which parties should be on the ballot; or
(b) vary its decision and direct that the results of the representation vote held on June 26, 2001 will not be considered until such tine as the Board determines whether it has the jurisdiction to order any representation vote or decides that it is appropriate to order such a vote and is able to determine which parties should be on the ballot.
[2]. It is argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the representation vote. The basis of the Request is set out in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Request. It is stated that:
After a short break, the Board issued an oral decision, to be confirmed in writing. The Board decided to treat the two certification applications as having been made on the same day and directed a representation vote be held on June 26, 2001. The ballot would give employees two choices: CAW or UFCW. All employees currently working at Brampton (approximately 230) would be entitled to vote and their ballots would be counted. The approximately 100 employees currently working at Downsview and Thorncliffe, who are expected to be moving to Brampton and into the bargaining unit over the course of the next few weeks would be entitled to vote, but their ballots would be segregated and sealed. The Board then adjourned the hearing dates set for June 19, 20, 21 and 29, 2001 and directed the parties to meet with a Labour Relations Officer. The Board stated it would confirm its oral decision in writing either later that day or the following morning.
On June 19, 2001, no reference whatsoever was made by the Board that it was ordering the representation vote in the termination application, pursuant to Section 66(2) of the Act.
[3]. An error is made when it is stated that section 66 of the Act was not referred to during the hearing. It was raised by the parties and was the basis of questioning by Mr. Ronson of Mr. Robertson during the course of the hearing. In the Board’s oral decision, there was no reference made to any of the provisions of the statute. The Board canvassed the parties as to the format of the ballot given the various applications that were before it. There was no agreement.
[4]. Having reviewed the Request for Reconsideration in its entirety, the Board wishes to confirm its written decision of June 21, 2001 in which it stated at paragraph 16:
- In the Board’s view, a test of employee wishes is appropriate at this time. The result of that vote may assist the parties and may provide helpful information to the Board in the exercise of its statutory responsibilities. The Board has not, however, determined what legal effect, if any, the results of that vote will have on the proceedings. Furthermore, in our view, holding a representation vote at this time will have no impact on the parties’ rights to pursue their positions in the pending applications.
We are not persuaded that there is any reason to reconsider our decision and further reasons may issue.
[5]. The hearing in this matter will reconvene on July 23 and 24, 2001 and such other dates as are agreed to by the Board and the parties or failing agreement set by the Board. The issue of the objection of the employer pursuant to section 8.1 of the Act is an issue that the Board will consider at the recommencement of the hearing.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board