Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 129 v. Corporation of the City of Pickering and Ajax-Pickering Transit System
1103-01-R Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 129, Applicant v. Corporation of the City of Pickering and Ajax-Pickering Transit System, Responding Parties v. The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 222 and Town of Ajax, Intervenors.
BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and
D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 16, 2001
This is an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
By letter dated August 13, 2001, the applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application in respect of subsection 1(4) of the Act. Having regard to the applicant’s request, the application under section 1(4) is hereby withdrawn with leave of the Board.
With respect to the application pursuant to section 69 of the Act, the Board notes that all of the parties are agreed that a sale of business has occurred.
The responding party, the Ajax-Pickering Transit System (“APTA”), the National Automobile, Aerospace Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW – Canada) and the Town of Ajax further submit that there has been an intermingling of employees. APTA and the CAW have requested that the Board direct a representation vote. Each proposes a slightly different bargaining unit description. While the Corporation of the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax have not specifically requested that a representation vote be directed, each of these parties “repeats and relies upon the facts and documents set out in the materials of” APTA.
In its letter dated August 13, 2001, the applicant requests that the Board direct a representation vote, but does not adopt either of the bargaining unit descriptions proposed by APTA or the CAW.
It therefore appears that there is agreement that there has been a sale of business and an intermingling of employees within the meaning of section 69 and that the Board should direct a representation vote. The only outstanding issue among the parties appears to be what constitutes the like bargaining unit and therefore what is the appropriate voting constituency.
This application is referred to the Labour Relations Officer (B. Dresner) to confer with the parties concerning any outstanding issues in dispute and to report back to the Board.
“Mary Anne McKellar”
for the Board