2238-01-R Suresh Kumar Ponnudurai, Applicant v. United Steel Workers of America, Local 8300, Responding Party v. DSI Industries Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 15, 2001
1The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) for a declaration that the responding party no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
2This application was filed on November 9, 2001. The bargaining unit description for the affected employees is as follows:
all employees of DSI Industries Inc. in the City of Vaughan, save and except Supervisors/Forepersons, persons above the rank of Supervisors/Forepersons, Office, Clerical and Sales Staff.
3It appears to the Board on an examination of the evidence before it, that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union at the time the application was filed.
4The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the employees of DSI Industries Inc. employed in the bargaining unit described in paragraph 2 above. All those employed in that bargaining unit on November 9, 2001, the application filing date, will be eligible to vote.
5The vote will be held on November 19, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached Notice of Vote and of Hearing.
6Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the responding party in their employment relations with DSI Industries Inc.
7There is an issue among the parties about whether this application is timely. The applicant states that the collective agreement between the intervenor and the responding party was signed on or about July 23, 2001, had an effective date of January 1, 2001 and expired on December 31, 2000. The intervenor agrees that the application is timely. However, the responding party submits that the current collective agreement does not expire until July 23, 2002 by operation of section 58(1) of the Act. It asserts that the affected employees ratified a memorandum of settlement but that no final collective agreement has yet been signed incorporating the terms of the settlement. The responding party submits that the collective agreement applicable to this bargaining unit did not commence operation until July of 2001 and is deemed under section 58 to be in operation until July of 2002. The responding party submits that the ballot box should be sealed.
8In light of the issue of timeliness, the Board directs that the ballot box from the vote be sealed. The ballots cast shall not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
9The employer is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to all copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Termination of Bargaining Rights" posted previously. These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
10Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for termination of bargaining rights, 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. 5: Status Disputes in Termination Applications (Non-Construction).
11The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board