Association of Professional Ambulance Employees (APAE) v. City of Toronto, Toronto Emergency Medical Services
File No.: 2456-01-R Date: December 5, 2001
Association of Professional Ambulance Employees (APAE), Applicant v. City of Toronto, Toronto Emergency Medical Services, Responding Party v. Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, Local 416, Intervenor v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is a certification application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, as amended (“the Act”).
2A review of the Board’s records indicates that the applicant has not proved trade union status previously. The applicant is directed to file materials by December 12, 2001 to prove its status as a trade union.
3The applicant seeks to represent a bargaining unit of full-time and part-time paramedics, emergency medical dispatchers and others employed by the City of Toronto Emergency Medical Services (“the City”). It is a partial displacement application, in that the unit sought carves out portions of the three large, existing bargaining units in the City. Those units are represented by Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (“Local 79”) and the Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, Local 416 (“Local 416”).
4The City, Local 79 and Local 416 say the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant is not, and cannot be, appropriate for collective bargaining. The City has filed notice under section 8.1 of the Act.
5The City, Local 79 and Local 416 say the appropriate bargaining units, for which a contending trade union might seek to displace the incumbents, are the three units determined by the Board to be appropriate under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 in Toronto (City) [1998] OLRB Rep. Sept/Oct. 772.
6Conventionally in cases such as this, the Board would vote the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit and the wider bargaining unit proposed by the employer, segregate the votes between the two units, and order that the ballot box be sealed until the appropriate bargaining unit had been determined. That approach does not make sense in this case. This is a partial displacement and the unit proposed by the applicant does not mirror any of the existing bargaining units. The bargaining units which exist are units which the Board has determined to be appropriate. The unit proposed by the applicant is so disparate from the existing units that it does not make sense to vote the existing units. Also the applicant clearly does not seek to represent the large, existing units. To vote the larger units—a ballot of some 17,000 employees—will involve a huge undertaking by the Board and much disruption for the City, which at this stage is not necessary.
7In our view the better approach is to have a hearing in the near future at which the Board will determine whether the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant is appropriate for collective bargaining, whether a representation vote should be held and any matters arising.
8The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board