0405-01-R International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1819, Applicant v. Regal Aluminum (1993) Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF VICE-CHAIR BRAM HERLICH, AND BOARD MEMBER, R. R. MONTAGUE; May 28, 2001
1The union seeks to withdraw its application for certification. The request was made prior to the taking of the representation vote previously directed by the Board (differently constituted). The responding party employer has requested that the Board impose conditions on the requested withdrawal pursuant to sections 7(8) and 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
2The Board has now had the opportunity to review the submissions of the parties. We are not persuaded that the circumstances asserted by the responding party (built essentially upon claims of incorrect union estimates of the numbers of employees in the bargaining unit and claims of workplace disruption in relation to the application in which the vote which was cancelled) warrant the exercise of the Board’s discretion to either impose conditions on the withdrawal (under section 7(8)) or to refuse to consider another application by the union for a period of time (under section 7(9)).
3In coming to this conclusion we accept and adopt the reasoning of the Board as expressed in CFM Majestic Inc. [1999] OLRB Rep. May/June 378 and Baron Metal Industries Inc. [1999] OLRB Rep. May/June 363 and the cases cited therein.
4This application is withdrawn by leave of the Board.
“Bram Herlich”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER, J. A. RUNDLE; May 28, 2001
I dissent from the decision of my colleagues in this matter. In the circumstances of this case, I would have imposed conditions on the union’s withdrawal and/or determined not to consider any subsequent application from the union in respect of this bargaining unit for a specified period of time.
“J. A. Rundle”