Nick Severino v. Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183
0348-01-R Nick Severino, Applicant v. Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183, Responding Party v. Main Rehabilitation Co. Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 6, 2001
This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision of May 2, 2001. That decision ordered the holding of a representation vote in an application to terminate bargaining rights under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act'). This request has been filed on behalf of Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 (“the union”).
The applicant is seeking to terminate bargaining rights with respect to the collective agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association and a Council of Trade Union acting as the representative and agent of (among others) the Labourers International Union of North America, Local Union 183 effective May 1, 1998 to April 30, 2001 (“the collective agreement”).
The vote was held on May 4, 2001. None of the ballots cast in the representation vote have been counted as the union has challenged each of the voters. The union alleges that those voters were not at work on the date of application and/or were not performing bargaining unit work on the date of application.
In support of its request for reconsideration, the union asserts that the application did not contain the requisite information in order for the Board to make its determination pursuant to section 63(5) of the Act. Specifically, the union contends that the job sites listed by the applicant where employees were working on the date of application were in St. Thomas and the bargaining unit description contained in the application and the collective agreement are in Board Area 8 and Simcoe County. Accordingly, the union argues that there were no employees properly at work in the bargaining unit on the date of application. The union therefore asserts that the evidence of 40% of employees in the bargaining unit described in the application having expressed a wish not to be represented by the union is lacking. That evidence is required under section 63(5) in order for the Board to order the holding of a representation vote. The union therefore requests that the application be dismissed in this reconsideration.
The Board declines to determine the reconsideration request at this time. The vote has already been held and the ballot box is sealed.
The matter is referred to the Registrar to be set down for hearing at which time, beside other matters, the union shall be allowed the opportunity to argue the issue of where the employees who are the subject of the application worked and whether they were entitled to cast a ballot. Once that determination is made, the union may then wish to renew its reconsideration request with respect to whether not less than forty per cent of the affected employees had expressed their wish not to be represented by the union.
This matter shall be scheduled for hearing with Board File No. 0350-01-R.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board