Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Hastings County Local Housing Corporation
Parties
0052-01-R Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Applicant v. Hastings County Local Housing Corporation, Responding Party v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1665, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 11, 2001
Decision
1This is an application for certification.
2The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
3It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the 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 employees of Hastings County Local Housing Corporation, save and except supervisor and persons above the rank of supervisor in the County of Hastings.
5The vote will be held on April 11, 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 April 4, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on April 4, 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.
7The intervenor submits that this application is untimely. It states that, to all intents and purposes, the County of Hastings and the Hastings County Local Housing Corporation are one and the same employer. The intervenor has a collective agreement expiring December 31, 2001 covering employees of the County of Hastings who, it submits, would also be included in the bargaining unit applied for in this application. The intervenor submits that the application should be dismissed or, in the alternative, the ballot box should be sealed.
8The responding party agrees with the intervenor that the affected employees are covered by the current collective agreement between the intervenor and responding party, and is therefore untimely under the Act.
9The responding party filed a response giving notice under section 8.1 of the Act and objecting to the counting of ballots. The responding party disputes both the number of employees in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit and the applicant’s description of the 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. Accordingly, were it not for the other disputes in this application, the Board would have ordered that the ballots be counted.
10In view of the dispute as to who is the “employer” of the affected employees and whether the application is timely, the Board has decided that the ballot box shall be sealed. 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.
11Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
12The 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.
13Any 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).
14The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board