United Steelworkers of America v. Garda Security Group Inc. and Riscon Security Services Ltd., 2001 CanLII 17734

0884-01-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Garda Security Group Inc. and Riscon Security Services Ltd., Responding Party.

BEFORE: T. W. Sargeant, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 25, 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").

3Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board further finds that:

all employees of Garda Security Group Inc. and Riscon Security Services Ltd., in the City of Mississauga, City of Brampton, City of London, City of St. Catharines, and the Town of Newmarket, save and except Patrol Supervisors, persons above the rank of Patrol Supervisor, dispatchers, client service representatives, private investigators licensed as such under the Private Investigator and Security Guard Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 25, and office, clerical and sales staff,

constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.

4It 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.

5Having regard to the agreement of the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:

6The vote will be held on June 27 and 28, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as directed by the Registrar and set out on the attached Notice of Vote and of Hearing.

7All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on June 20, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on June 20, 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.

8Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.

9It appears to the Board on the pleadings that this application may relate to two different employers. The Board would point out that if the applicant is ultimately successful, a certificate may only be granted in relation to one employer. Thus there may be an issue as to who is the proper employer.

10The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.

11Any 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, 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).

12The matter is referred to the Registrar.

"Timothy W. Sargeant"

for the Board