0860-01-R Service Employees International Union Local 220, Applicant v. Canadian Deaf Blind Ruebella Association, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 21, 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 (“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.
4The responding party disagrees with the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit description. It states that the bargaining unit should encompass all of its five locations in the County of Middlesex, whereas the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit only includes two locations, in the City of London. The responding party gives notice under section 8.1. It states that there are 21 persons in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit. However, it is clear from the response, including Schedules “A” and “B” that it is the responding party’s proposed unit that has 21 persons, not the applicant’s proposed unit. The purpose of a section 8.1 notice is to dispute the size of the applicant’s proposed unit, i.e, to give notice that the applicant has incorrectly estimated the size of its proposed unit. Accordingly, we do not find this to be a valid notice under section 8.1 of the Act. In any event, the responding party has agreed that the ballots should be counted.
5In view of the dispute over the description of the bargaining unit. the ballots cast by individuals employed at the two City of London locations in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit shall be segregated and counted separately from those cast by individuals employed at the three other locations that the responding party asserts should be included in the bargaining unit.
6The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of the Canadian Deaf-Blind Ruebella Association (Ontario Chapter) Inc. in the County of Middlesex, save and except team leaders and persons above the rank of team leader and office and clerical staff.
7The vote will be held on June 25, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
8All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on June 18, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on June 18, 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.
9Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
10The 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.
11Any 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).
12The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board