2071-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. CPL Long Term Care REIT, Central Park Lodges Inc., Central Care Corporation c.o.b. as Longfields Manor Nursing Home, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union Local 183, Service Employees International Union Local 204 and Service Employees International Union, Intervenor.
2119-01-R Service Employees International Union Local 183, Applicant v. Central Care Corporation c.o.b. as Longfields Manor Nursing Home, Responding Party v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 5, 2001
These are applications for certification. The application in Board File No. 2119-01-R was made subsequent to the application in Board File No. 2071-01-R. By decision dated October 31, 2001, and pursuant to section 111(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”), the Board decided to treat the subsequent application as having been made on the date of the making of the original application.
The Registrar has certified that both applicants have been found to be trade unions in earlier proceedings under the Act. Therefore, having regard to the Registrar’s certificates and section 113 of the Act, the Board finds that the applicants are trade unions within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.
It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application in Board File No. 2071-01-R and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant in that file (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 filed.
It further appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application in Board File No. 2119-01-R and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant in that file (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 filed.
The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Longfields Manor Nursing Home in Nepean, Ontario, save and except Registered Nurses, supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, housekeeping staff, laundry staff, kitchen staff and students employed during the school vacation period.
The vote will be held on November 7, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on October 25, 2001, the certification application filing date in the original application, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on October 25, 2001, the original 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.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the CAW-Canada or SEIU Local 183 or whether they do not wish to be represented by a trade union, in their employment relations with the responding party.
In view of the issues concerning timeliness, the Board directs that the ballot box from the representation vote be sealed. The ballots cast shall not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
The responding party employer in Board File No. 2071-01-R (the “first application”) submits that the application is untimely. It asserts that there is a collective agreement in place covering the affected employees. It identifies Service Employees International Union Local 183 as a trade union that “may be affected” by this application (see paragraph 8 of the response). It submits that the Board does not have jurisdiction to process the application for certification or to hold a vote until such time as SEIU’s bargaining rights have been properly determined. The responding party also asserts that the application is untimely because there will be a “build up” of employees in the affected bargaining unit once the nursing home is working at full capacity.
Service Employees International Union, Service Employees International Union Local 183 and Service Employees International Union Local 204 intervene in the first application. The intervenors make a number of submissions as to why a representation vote should not be held in this application. Local 183 asserts that it is the bargaining agent for the affected employees by virtue of a voluntary recognition agreement. Local 204 asserts that it represents the employees under a subsisting collective agreement with Versa Care and the bargaining unit in question represents an accretion to an existing collective agreement. Both Locals assert that the application is untimely.
The intervenors in the first application assert that the first application violates a settlement agreement dated May 23, 2001, between SEIU (including Local 183) and the CAW, and that such breach is violation of the Act pursuant to subsection 96(7) of the Act. They have filed an unfair labour practice and request that it be heard at the same time as any hearing scheduled in respect of these applications.
CAW Canada , the applicant in the first application, disputes the assertions of the other parties that its application is untimely. It asserts that the submissions of the other parties do not warrant a delay of the representation vote, and can be dealt with after the vote, if necessary. The applicant asserts that the responding party has not asserted facts sufficient to make out a case of “build up”. As an intervenor in the second application, CAW Canada urges that a vote in the second application be delayed until after the vote in the first application. It submits that, in the event the Board exercises its discretion under section 111(3)(a), the membership evidence of SEIU Local 183 must show support as of October 25, 2001 or before, and that SEIU Local 183 has not met the 40% membership threshold. SEIU Local 183 disputes CAW Canada’s interpretation of how the 40% requirement in section 8(2) applies. However, although the parties differ on the point, the Board considers that the applicant SEIU Local 183 had complied with section 8(2) on the date it filed its application.
Section 8.1 Notices
- The responding party in