Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Parties
0295-01-R Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 15, 2001
Decision
1Pursuant to the Board's direction of April 30, 2001, a representation vote was taken on May 2, 2001.
2The Board has received representations dated May 9, 2001 from the responding party (“CAS”) and from eight objecting employees. Having considered these representations, we are satisfied that the responding party and eight objecting employees raised no allegations which warrant the Board setting aside the results of the May 2, 2001 representation vote, and ordering a second vote, as urged.
3In separate pieces of correspondence dated May 9, 2001, both CAS and the objecting employees raise concerns about the sufficiency of the notice of the representation vote, and contend that a second vote should be ordered by the Board. With respect to the concerns raised by the CAS, we note that the certification worksheet completed on May 2, 2001, following the counting of the ballots, and to which CAS was a signatory, indicates that the parties are agreed that a final certificate is to issue to the applicant without the Board inquiring into any outstanding issues. Moreover, the concerns raised by CAS on May 9, 2001 pertain not to its rights as a party in the certification process, but to the rights of employees to meaningful participation in the process to decide whether or not to be represented by a bargaining agent.
4The relevant text of the correspondence containing the concerns of the eight objecting employees is as follows:
We are part-time employees with the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto.
A vote conducted by C.U.P.E. to be included in their union was held on May 2, 2001, and we were not informed by C.U.P.E. of this event. We only became aware of this the day before by our employer. The time period for the voting was also changed without notice and some elegible voters were not able to participate in the vote as a result of this time change.
We are very unhappy with the process of certification, and do not agree with the outcome of this vote. We would like another vote to take place with sufficient notice sent to all eligible voters.
5The allegation that the union did not inform employees of the vote is inconsequential in our determination, as the union has no obligation in that regard. The objecting employees appear to contend that they received very short notice of the vote, but they do not allege that they were unable to cast ballots as a result. Finally, there is an unparticularized allegation concerning a change in the time period in which the vote was conducted, which the objecting employees say impeded an unspecified number of unnamed employees from taking part in the vote. Again, there is no suggestion that the objecting employees themselves were deprived of the opportunity to vote as a result of the alleged change in vote time. Their objection in this regard appears to be made on behalf of other employees who have not notified the Board of any concerns. Moreover, the Notice of Vote and of Hearing indicates that there was one poll, at which voting would take place between the hours of 2:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on May 2, 2001. There is nothing in the file to suggest that the poll hours were in any way abridged. Perhaps some employees misunderstood the distinction between the applicant’s and CAS’s proposed hours for the vote (as stated in their application and response respectively) on one hand, and the shorter time period that the Registrar determined was appropriate pursuant to the Board’s decision of April 30, 2001. In any event, it appears that the vote was carried out in the manner and within the time frames as determined and communicated by the Board.
6For these reasons, the Board will issue a final decision in this matter without a hearing, and without ordering a second representation vote.
7Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board finds that:
all employees of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto in the City of Toronto employed for less than 24 hours a week, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor and students employed during the school vacation period and employees in bargaining units for which a trade union holds bargaining rights,
constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.
8On 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 favour of the applicant.
9A certificate will issue to the applicant.
10The 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.
11The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision immediately in a location or locations where it is likely to come to the attention of employees affected by this application.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board