The Laurentian University Faculty Association v. The University of Sudbury
File No.: 2416-01-R Date: November 30, 2001
Before: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
Decision of the Board
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 full and part-time academic staff including professional librarians, employed by the University of Sudbury, save and except the President, Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Treasurer, and Chaplain, in the Province of Ontario.
5The applicant requests that some of the employees in the bargaining unit be allowed to cast their ballots by way of a mail-in- vote. It asserts that 9 employees out of a total of 33 in the bargaining unit will have difficulty casting a ballot if the Board proceeds under its normal system. Of the 9 in question 2 professors are on sabbatical and are located in distant places, 4 are professors who live outside Sudbury and 3 are retired professors who the employer believes will teach in the future who also live outside Sudbury.
6The union asserts that the Board should not hold a mail-in ballot vote.
7In Brock University, [1997] OLRB Rep. Jan./Feb. 2 the Board discussed the policy on holding mail-in ballots:
- Hitherto, having regard to the above considerations, the Board has accepted that, although desirable to ensure the fullest participation in the ballot by the voting constituency, it will usually order mail-in votes only in very limited circumstances, for example where the nature of the work of the affected employees requires their dispersal far from the employer’s premises where the vote would customarily be held. Only in such limited circumstances or where there are compelling reasons and where to hold the vote at the employer’s premises or some fixed location gives no reasonable opportunity for a significant proportion of the voting constituency to cast its vote, or on the agreement of the parties, will the Board order a mail-in ballot. None of those circumstances apply in this application.
8In our view these are not appropriate circumstances for the holding of a mail-in ballot. The Board has not generally held a mail-in ballot for persons on sabbatical (see Brock University) and retired professors are certainly in no better position. As for the four employees who are currently employees but live outside Sudbury, it is our view that when an employee chooses (as opposed to being required by the employer) to live a distance from the workplace, there are consequences to that choice, including the fact that it may be difficult to cast a ballot in a representation vote. To determine otherwise would be to invite arguments with respect to any employee who has difficulty getting to the workplace for any reason.
9The vote will be held on December 4, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
10All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on November 27, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on November 27, 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.
11There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the positions of Department Chairs and Librarians should be included in the bargaining unit. If any individual holding such a position wishes to cast a ballot, the individual shall identify himself or herself as occupying a disputed position and such individual shall then be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot cast by such an individual shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
12Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
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.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board