0655-01-R Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 87-M Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild, Applicant v. Kitchener-Waterloo Record (A Division of Toronto Daily Newspaper Group Inc.), Responding Party.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice‑Chair and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF PATRICK KELLY, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON: May 31, 2001
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 as amended (the "Act").
3It 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. The responding party contended that, to the extent there was any membership evidence filed with the application that was dated a year or more before the application filing date, such evidence should not be considered by the Board. Without making any determination of the responding party's contention in this regard, the Board observes that all the membership evidence provided by the applicant was dated on various days in May 2001.
4The responding party agrees with the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit, but it proposes a different bargaining unit than that proposed by the applicant, and it contends that the applicant's bargaining unit could not be appropriate. Notwithstanding its agreement with respect to the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit, the responding party purported to give notice under section 8.1 of the Act. It appears that the responding party's real concern in giving the section 8.1 notice relates to the dating of the membership evidence. The responding party has not made a proper section 8.1 notice, and, in any event, it agrees that the ballots cast in the representation vote should be counted.
5The Board finds that the bargaining unit described in the application could be appropriate, notwithstanding that the municipality named therein is incorrectly identified as the Regional Municipality of Kitchener-Waterloo.
6The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all part-time employees of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, (A Division of Torstar Daily Newspaper Group Inc.) in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo employed in the mailroom, save and except supervisors and persons above the rank of supervisor and persons for whom the Applicant held bargaining rights as of May 28, 2001
7Counsel for the responding party requests that the Board direct that the vote take place on Thursday, June 7, 2001 rather than, as the applicant requests, Monday, June 4, 2001, the fifth day following the filing of the application, as contemplated by section 8(5). The proposed bargaining unit of either party contains 101 employees. Counsel for the responding party submits that on Monday June 4, 2001, only twelve employees will be scheduled to work, and that that number will increase only slightly on June 5 and June 6, 2001. However, argues counsel, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays are typically the heaviest scheduled days of work for employees affected by this application, and thus the vote should be held on Thursday, June 7, 2001 in order to conduct a meaningful vote. Assuming without finding that the facts as alleged by the responding party are accurate – and the Board has not received any submissions from the applicant contesting the veracity of those allegations – we agree, in these unusual circumstances, that this is an appropriate case to delay the vote by three days.
8The vote will be held on June 7, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
9All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on May 28, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on May 28, 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.
10Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
11The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to each of the posted copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
12Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, 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).
13The matter is referred to the Registrar.
"Patrick Kelly"
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER R. R. MONTAGUE; May 31, 2001
I dissent with respect to the date of the representation vote. I would have ordered the vote to be held on June 4, 2001, within the five-day period contemplated by section 8(5).
"R. R. Montague"