Ontario Labour Relations Board
0174-01-R Tony Monaco, Applicant v. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and The IBEW Construction Council of Ontario and affiliated IBEW Local Union 353, Responding Parties v. Midtown Enterprises Limited, Intervenor.
0341-01-R Tony Monaco, Applicant v. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and The IBEW Construction Council of Ontario and affiliated IBEW Local Union 353, Responding Parties v. Midtown Enterprises Limited, Intervenor.
0508-01-G International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 353, Applicant v. Midtown Enterprises Limited/Zenith Electric Limited, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 27, 2001
Decision
1By decision dated September 12, 2001, I directed the counting of the three ballots in this termination application that the parties had agreed were cast by the only persons eligible to vote. I also directed the responding party in the termination application (the union) to particularize its allegations that the employer had breached section 63(13) in the event that the union intended to pursue those charges. Nothing was filed by the deadline date imposed by the Board.
2As there are no further matters in dispute in the termination application, this file can be resolved without a hearing. Consequently, the Board cancels the hearing scheduled for October 1 and 2, 2001.
3On 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 opposition to the responding party.
4The Board declares that the responding party no longer represents the employees of Midtown Enterprises Limited for whom it has heretofore been the bargaining agent.
5The 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.
6In its decision of September 12, 2001, the Board indicated that the union’s referral of grievance in Board File 0508-01-G was not scheduled for hearing on October 1 and 2, 2001. At the time I was unaware that the Registrar had sent out Notice of Hearing on August 13, 2001 listing the grievance referral for hearing. I understand from the correspondence of counsel for the union, that it still wants the grievance referral listed for hearing on those days. The Board declines to do so at this time.
7I note that the grievance referral indicates that the union intends to rely on section 1(4) of the Act, and intends to file a section 1(4) application as between Midtown Enterprises Limited and Zenith Electric Company. From the Board’s records, it does not appear that any such application has been made. I also understand from a review of older files (that is, Board Files 1182-00-R; 1189‑00‑U; 1218-00-G and 1219-00-R) that by decision dated November 23, 2000, the union, Midtown and Zenith entered into Minutes of Settlement which resulted in the Board issuing a declaration that Midtown and Zenith were related employers. Consequently, the Board is somewhat confused about the union’s intentions at this point. In any event, I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to schedule the grievance for hearing at this time. Once the union clarifies its intentions with respect to the section 1(4) issue, it may contact the Registrar to set dates for the hearing of the grievance referral.
8Counsel for the employer wrote to the Board seeking a correction of its September 12, 2001 decision, in which the Board indicated that submissions had not been received from the employer around the voter eligibility issues. Counsel has established that she sent the lengthy submission by facsimile transmission, and enclosed the confirmation sheet, indicating a successful transmission to the Board’s facsimile number. Unfortunately, the Board has not located a copy of the original document (counsel send a second copy) but can now confirm that counsel did send it in a timely way. However, as events have turned out, neither the Board nor the employer have been prejudiced by this communication glitch.
9The Board is also terminating Board File 0341-01-R. This was a second termination application filed in response to the union’s submission that the first was untimely.
10The employer is directed to post copies of this decision immediately, adjacent to all copies of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" posted previously. These copies must remain posted until the date that had been set for the hearing.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board