Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 0053-00-PS Date: May 15, 2001
Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 794; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 839; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 772; Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 70; Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 235; Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 206 and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 273, Responding Parties.
Before: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1The Board is in receipt of a request for reconsideration dated April 27, 2001 from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE”). That request raises a concern with respect to certain vote arrangements directed by the Board for the holding of the vote in the “technical” bargaining unit, as set out in the Board’s decision dated March 29, 2001.
2That decision ordered three votes of employees of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation arising in each of three newly configured bargaining units. These votes arise in the context of the merger of essentially, four pre-existing health care facilities into one. That history can be reviewed in the Board’s earlier decisions in this matter, specifically those dated April 25, 2000, June 14, 2000, December 27, 2000, January 30, 2001, and March 29, 2001.
3In its request for reconsideration CUPE asks that the vote in the “technical” unit be set aside and that a new vote be held on the basis that the polls were open for a shorter period of time than the parties had agreed.
4The arrangements that the parties came to contemplated that the polls in each of the three votes would be open from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on both April 18 and 19, 2001. The Board directed that the polls in the “technical” unit and the “trades” unit be open from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. each day of the vote. The polls in the “service” unit were open all day, each day, in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
5Although an important factor, the parties’ agreement is not the only factor in the setting of vote arrangements. The Board’s Information Bulletin No. 3 states:
The Board typically accommodates any arrangements that are agreed upon by all parties. However, if it is determined that the vote arrangements agreed to by the parties are not suitable because they are too costly or do not adequately allow employees the opportunity to vote, of if the parties do not agree on vote arrangement, the Board normally sets the arrangements without further consultation with the parties….
6These votes anticipated heavy use of the Board’s resources. On April 18, 2001 eight polls were established. On April 19, 2001, seven polls were established. Each required the assignment of a Labour Relations Officer to conduct the balloting for that poll. In fact twelve Officers were utilized on April 18 and eleven Officers on April 19, 2001 in order to accommodate these votes. That represents approximately 50 percent of the Field Services staff each day at a time when there is generally heavy demand for those services. The “service” unit was by far the largest bargaining unit, with an anticipated number of voters in the range of 3,000 or more. The “trades” unit contemplated approximately 130 voters. The “technical” unit was anticipated to comprise approximately 800 voters. In the Board’s experience, and notwithstanding the agreement of the parties, it would have been unnecessary and an inappropriate use of the Board’s resources to maintain polls for the “technical” and the “trades” units for the number of hours contemplated by the parties.
7CUPE relies on a lower voter turnout in the “technical” unit to suggest that the voting hours were inadequate. It also notes that the bargaining unit is primarily female. Accepting for purposes of this decision the numbers cited by CUPE, 87% of the eligible voters in the “trades” unit voted and 69% of the eligible voters in the technical unit voted. Not noted by CUPE is the fact that only approximately 57.4% of the voters in the “service” unit exercised their franchise, notwithstanding the longer polling hours. It may also be the case that the majority of employees in the “service” unit are also female. The point is simply that one cannot draw any clear correlation between the percentage of voter turnout in the “technical” unit and the polling hours.
8Concern with the polling times was not raised by CUPE prior to the holding of the vote, notwithstanding receipt of the Notices of Vote specifying polling hours. As it was, the polls were open in the “technical” unit for a period of ten hours over the course of the two-day vote, more than ample time in the Board’s view to make arrangements to attend in order to exercise one’s franchise.
9Having regard to the above, this request for reconsideration is dismissed.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board