Employees Essroc Italcementi Group v. Teamsters Local 91
2007-01-R Employees Essroc Italcementi Group, Applicant v. Teamsters Local 91, Responding Party v. Essroc Canada Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 8, 2001
The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (the “Act”) for a declaration that the responding party no longer represents the employees in a bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
Pursuant to the Board’s direction of October 22, 2001, a representation vote was taken on October 24, 2001.
The Board has received representations from counsel for the intervenor dated October 31, 2001. In that correspondence, counsel notes that the intervenor is not engaged in the construction industry, that neither the applicant nor the trade union affected by this application has opposed the intervenor’s previous assertion in this regard and asks that the Board’s decision in this matter reflect the fact that the intervenor does not engage in the construction industry. The Board notes that the intervenor’s submissions in this regard relate to the fact that the applicant filed its application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63(2) of the Act using Form A-77, which is to be used for the construction industry only. No objection was, however, made to the processing of this application in the circumstances. The intervenor simply noted that it was not engaged in the construction industry and the responding party did not file a response to the application at all. It appears from the intervenor’s assertion that the applicant may simply have filed its application on the wrong form.
The Board, however, finds it unnecessary to make any determination about whether the intervenor engages in the construction industry before disposing of this application. This is because a determination of that issue would not change the result of this application, since an application under section 63(2) of the Act to terminate bargaining rights may be brought whether or not the employer of the employees in the bargaining unit in issue is engaged in the construction industry. In issuing a final decision in this matter, the Board, however, specifically notes that it has made no determination about whether or not the intervenor engages in the construction industry.
On the taking of the representation vote directed by the Board, more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in opposition to the responding party.
The Board declares that the responding party no longer represents the employees of Essroc Canada Inc. for whom it has heretofore been the bargaining agent in the following bargaining unit:
all employees of Premier Concrete Primeau/Miron, a division of Essroc Canada Inc. employed at or working out of the Township of McNab and Petawawa and the Ashton Plant in the Township of Goulbourn, save and except foremen, those above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff.
The Registrar will destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote taken in this matter following the expiration of 30 days from the date of this decision unless a statement requesting that the ballots should not be destroyed is received by the Board from one of the parties before the expiration of such 30 day period.
Meeting and hearing dates set previously are hereby cancelled.
The employer is directed to post copies of this decision immediately, adjacent to the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" posted previously. These copies must remain posted for a period of 30 days.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board