3537-00-R The Corporation of the City of Quinte West, Applicant v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636; Canadian Union of Public Employees; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 799, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 30, 2001
[1]. By decision dated June 19, 2001, the Board directed the filing of written submissions concerning whether or not a representation vote should be directed as between the responding party trade unions, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 (“IBEW”) and Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE”), following a sale of business from the predecessor, Quinte West Public Utilities Commission (“the PUC”) to the applicant. The Board also directed written submissions from the parties concerning the extent, if any, to which the applicant should be or is bound to the collective agreement between the PUC and CUPE, covering the water pollution control plant.
[2]. All the parties filed their written submissions, and in addition, CUPE filed reply submissions.
[3]. After giving consideration to the parties’ submissions, we conclude that no representation vote should be directed in this matter. IBEW represents either 11.5% (according to IBEW) or 13.2% (according to CUPE) of the employees in the new combined bargaining unit. Conversely, CUPE represents 88.5% or 86.8% of the employees. No cases were cited to us in which the Board has directed a vote where the disparity in bargaining unit representation was as wide as it is in this case. In our view, no compelling labour relations purpose would be served by the taking of a representation vote.
[4]. We decline to order a representation vote under section 69(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
[5]. It would appear that all the parties agree that the applicant is bound to the collective agreement made between the PUC and CUPE.
[6]. It is not entirely clear whether there are any further outstanding issues to be dealt with prior to the issue of a final decision. If no party advises the Board of any such issue within ten days of the date of this decision, a final decision will follow.
[7]. The applicant is directed to post copies of this decision in a location or locations in the workplace where it is likely to come to the attention of employees affected by this application. Those copies are to remain posed for a period of thirty days from the date of this decision.
[8]. We remain seized.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board