0030-01-R Marc Lefebvre, on his own behalf and on behalf of a group of employees of Burchill Mechanical Contractors Limited, Applicant v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union No. 47, Responding Party v. Burchill Mechanical Contractors Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee , Vice-Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 10, 2001
This is an application for the termination of bargaining rights held by the responding party in respect of certain employees of the intervenor, made pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (the "Act"). A representation vote has been held. All three of the employees who cast ballots in this vote, voted in favour of terminating the responding party’s bargaining rights.
The responding party seeks a hearing on one issue. The vote was held, as requested by the applicant, in the boardroom of the employer’s office. The responding party asked that the vote be conducted on the two job sites at which the employees worked. The responding party continues to object to the fact that the vote was held in the employer’s boardroom, on the grounds that this was not a neutral location.
The fact that a vote was held on the employer’s premises is not, itself, an indication that employees did not have an opportunity to express their true wishes as to representation. It is difficult to characterize the employer’s offices as any less neutral than the place where the employer carries on business. The Board has often conducted representation votes, particularly in non-construction applications, on the employer’s premises, and in locations such as boardrooms where production employees never work. The Board’s concern is that employees be able to mark their ballots in a location where they are confident of the secrecy of the ballot, and where they will not be subject to any undue influence or distraction at the time they are marking their ballot.
In addition, the Board will not assume as a given fact, that employees, in the construction industry or any other industry, are so frail in their views and beliefs, that the mere location of a poll for a secret ballot vote is likely to prevent them from expressing their true wishes.
The responding party objects to the fact that the choice of location was dictated in part by what was “convenient” to the Board. The Board is not possessed of infinite resources. It does not have offices in every municipality in the Province of Ontario. It cannot afford to rent space in a hotel for every representation vote. The responding party did not suggest any location on the job site where a poll could be set up, having regard to the fact that the Board tries not to expropriate the premises of parties not connected to the application. While the Board has, on a few occasions, conducted a representation vote in the automobile of a Vote Officer where there was simply no other location available, this is less than ideal. Certainly if there are alternate locations not dependent on the weather, such locations are prima facie, preferable.
If the responding party wishes to pursue its objection, the Board directs it to file written submissions setting out all of the facts it says are relevant, and all the submissions that it wishes to make on this issue. It is not apparent that a hearing is necessary. The responding party is to file its submissions on or before 5:00 p.m. May 25, 2001. The other parties need not respond until directed to do so by the Board.
I am seized of this application.
“David A. McKee ”
for the Board