United Steelworkers of America v. Baron Metals Industries Inc., 2001 CanLII 12456

United Steelworkers of America v. Baron Metals Industries Inc.

Court File and Parties

2687-98-R; 3150-98-U United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Baron Metals Industries Inc., Responding Party.

BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.

APPEARANCES: Mark Wright, Brando Paris and Doug Lefaive for the applicant; Joseph Liberman, Erin R. Kuzz and Scott Bates for the responding party; George Cowley, counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service, accompanying Detective Constable Glen Furlong who was served a summons to witness.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 22, 2001

Decision

1. In the Board’s decision of May 4, 2001 the following appeared at paragraphs 141 to 143:

A fresh representation vote

141. The union is entitled, on the basis set out herein, to determine broadly when a fresh representation vote will occur. The vote must be within six months of the date of this decision. The union will provide the Board and the employer with written notice that it wishes the representation vote to be held. Upon receipt of the notice from the union, the request for a vote will be treated like a certification application. The parties can expect that, unless there are compelling reasons to arrive at a different date, the representation vote will occur five days after the Board receives the notice. All those at work, or employed with a reasonable prospect of returning to work, in the agreed bargaining unit on the date of this decision will be eligible to vote. (The union asked that those in the bargaining unit when the fresh vote is ordered be eligible to vote. Hence no issue was raised between the parties as to whether the voting constituency should be only those employees who were eligible to vote on November 16, 1998. In these circumstances the Board has not addressed the question, in this decision, of whether there might be circumstances when the voting constituency should be only the employees eligible to vote in the original (tainted) vote, or whether (as here) it should be the employees at work or employed with a reasonable prospect of returning to work on the date on which the fresh vote is triggered – in this case, on the date of this decision).

142. The bargaining unit (“the bargaining unit”) upon which the parties have agreed is the following:

all employees of Baron Metal Industries Inc. in the Regional Municipality of York, save and except forepersons, persons above the rank of foreperson, office, clerical and sales staff.

That unit is deemed to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.

143. The employer is directed to produce to the Board and the union a voters’ list within five (5) days of the date of this decision. As stated, that list shall contain the names and positions of those persons (in the form of Schedule “A” to a response to a certification application) at work or employed (though not at work, but with a reasonable expectation of their return) in the bargaining unit on the date of this decision.

144. Pursuant to the Board’s order, the applicant union has written to the Registrar to advise that the union wishes the representation vote to be held on October 26, 2001.

145. Having regard to the agreement of the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:

all employees of Baron Metal Industries Inc. in the Regional Municipality of York, save and except forepersons, persons above the rank of foreperson, office, clerical and sales staff.

4. The vote will be held on October 26, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as directed by the Registrar and set out on the attached Notice of Vote.

5. All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on May 4, 2001, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on May 4, 2001, include employees who were not at work on that date, so long as there is a reasonable expectation of their return to employment. Any employee who wishes to cast a ballot should bring with him or her photograph identification, if available, to establish his or her identity.

6. There appears to be a dispute between the parties as to whether individuals who were employees of the responding party on May 4, 2001, but who are no longer employed by the responding party, are entitled to cast a ballot. Any such person shall be entitled to cast a ballot, but his or her ballot will be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.

7. 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.

8. The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.

9. 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, 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).

10. The matter is referred to the Registrar.

“Christopher J. Albertyn”

for the Board