Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Algoma District Health Unit
File No.: 0744-01-R Date: July 16, 2001
Applicant: Canadian Union of Public Employees Responding Party: Algoma District Health Unit
Before: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair
Decision of the Board
1This is an application for certification.
2On the day scheduled for hearing in this matter, the parties executed and filed a Memorandum of Agreement.
3Having regard to the terms of that agreement the Board hereby directs that a new representation vote be held of individuals in the same voting constituency set out in the Board’s decision of June 11, 2001.
4The Board notes that the parties have agreed on the list of employees eligible to vote.
5The vote will be held on July 20, 2001. Other arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached Notice of Vote.
6Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
7The responding party is hereby directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote" in locations where they are likely to come to the attention of all affected employees. These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
8Any 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).
9For the benefit of employees who filed written submissions, the Board wishes to indicate that those submissions ought to have been but were not formally acknowledged. However, had the matter not been resolved by the parties, those employee submissions would have been before the Board for its consideration.
10It is regrettable that proper notice of the first representation vote was not provided to all employees. It goes without saying that the Board prefers that notices of the taking of representation votes are posted prior not subsequent to the actual taking of such votes. That is why (as we have now done for a second time in this case) employers are routinely required to post notices of the taking of representation votes.
11The parties, however, have found a reasonable and sensible manner in which to address the lack of notice in this case. In that context it would serve no useful purpose for the Board to comment any further.
12The matter is referred to the Registrar.
"Bram Herlich"
for the Board