1342-01-R Teamsters Local Union 938, Applicant v. Phillip Powers Auto Transport Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 10, 2001
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 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 responding party disputes the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, the responding party proposes a different bargaining unit than that proposed by the applicant and it contends that the applicant's bargaining unit could not be appropriate. It gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act.
5The Board finds that the bargaining unit described in the application could be appropriate. The Board has not conducted a review of the section 8.1 objection at this time. In accordance with the agreement of the parties the ballots cast in the representation vote will be counted.
6The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Phillip Powers Auto Transport Inc. working in and out of the Regional Municipality of Durham, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office and clerical staff.
7The vote will be held on August 14, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
8All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on August 7, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on August 7, 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.
9There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the position of maintenance employees 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.
10Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
11The 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.
12Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, 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).
13The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board