Ontario Labour Relations Board
1695-01-R Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. Cancer Care Ontario, Responding Party
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 21, 2001
1This is an application for certification.
2The Registrar has certified that the applicant had been found to be a trade union in an earlier proceeding under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). Therefore, having regard to the Registrar’s certificate and section 113 of the Act, the Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.
3It 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.
4The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all Radiation Therapists, Radiology Technologists (Senior Mammography Technologists, Mammography Technologists, Ultrasound Technologists), Dosimetrists, Electronic Technologists, Senior Electronic Technologists, Computer Technicians, Machinists, Senior Machinists, Mould Room Technicians, Senior Radiation Therapists, Physics Technicians and Clinical Instructors in Radiation Therapy employed by Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre in the City of Hamilton, save and except staff covered by subsisting Collective Agreements, those staff included and excluded (except for those positions listed above) in the Clerical Unit, Supervisors and persons above the rank of Supervisor and Student Radiation Therapists.
5The vote will be held on September 25, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
6All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on September 18, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on September 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.
7Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
8The applicant proposes a bargaining unit described as follows:
all Radiology Technologists, Electronic Technologists, Computer Technicians, Machinists, Mould Room Technicians, Mould Room Assistants and Physics Technicians employed by Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre in the City of Hamilton, save and except staff covered by subsisting Collective Agreements, those staff included and excluded (except for those positions listed above) in the Clerical Unit, Supervisors and persons above the rank of Supervisor.
9The responding party proposes the following bargaining unit:
all Radiation Therapists, Radiology Technologists (Senior Mammography Technologists), Mammography Technologists, Ultrasound Technologists), Dosimetrists, Electronic Technologists, Senior Electronic Technologists, Computer Technicians, Machinists, Senior Machinists, Mould Room Technicians, Senior Radiation Therapists, Physics Technicians and Clinical Instructors in Radiation Therapy employed by Cancer Car Ontario, Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre in the City of Hamilton, save and except staff covered by subsisting Collective Agreements, those staff included and excluded (except for those positions listed above) in the Clerical Unit, Supervisors and persons above the rank of Supervisor and Student Radiation Therapists.
10The responding party’s proposed bargaining unit is a much larger unit which reflects the composition of a pre-existing unit at the workplace.
11Under the circumstances, the Board directs that the ballot box from the representation vote be sealed. The ballots shall not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree. In addition, because of the number of disputed positions, all ballots shall be individually segregated.
12The responding party gives notice under paragraph 8.1 that it disagrees with the applicant’s estimate of the number of individuals in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit. After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant as against the information provided by the responding party, the Board finds that the numerical difference between the parties is not significant. The applicant has established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit for the purposes of obtaining a representation vote.
13The 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.
14Any 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).
15The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board