0194-01-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. 687335 Ontario Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 23, 2001
1. This is an application for certification.
2. The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
3. It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant (see section 8(3) of the Act), that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
4. The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of 687335 Ontario Ltd. in the Regional Municipality of Peel, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, and office, clerical and sales staff.
5. The vote will be held on April 25, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
6. All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on April 18, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on April 18, 2001, the certification application filing date, include employees who were not at work on that date, so long as there is a reasonable expectation of their return to employment.
7. There is a difference between the parties concerning the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit and the appropriate managerial exclusions. The applicant refers to employees employed “in the Regional Municipality of Peel” whereas the responding party refers to employees employed “at 335 Superior Blvd., Mississauga”. With respect to the managerial exclusion, the applicant proposes to exclude “supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor” whereas the responding party proposes to exclude “Supervisor/Coordinators and persons above the role of Supervisor/Coordinator”. There is also a difference between the parties concerning the correct name of the responding party. In this respect, the applicant refers to “687335 Ontario Ltd.” whereas the responding party refers to “Hydropool Industries (687335 Ontario Ltd.)”. If any individual is in dispute as a result of these differences, that individual shall be entitled to cast a ballot in the representation vote. Any ballot cast by such an individual will be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
8. 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.
9. The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to each of the posted copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
10. 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, including any matters relating to the representation vote, 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).
11. The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board