Ontario Labour Relations Board
0386-01-R United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46, Applicant v. A & E Plumbing Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice‑Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 10, 2001
The Board, by decisions in this matter dated May 3, 2001, directed a representation vote among employees of the responding party and also found that the intervention filed by the Universal Workers Union Local 183 (“Local 183”) was untimely. In addition the Board noted that the responding party had failed to file a timely response.
Local 183 filed a request for reconsideration of the Board’s two decisions issued on May 3, 2001. That request was filed with the Board on May 4, 2001, but only came to my attention on May 10, 2001. Local 183, as part of the relief sought in the request for reconsideration was to have its name on the ballot if a vote were to take place, but its principal position was that the vote should not be held. Furthermore, Local 183 sought to have a scrutineer at the vote and an agent at the counting of the ballots. It appears that the ballot box was sealed at the request of the applicant.
Local 183 also submitted that it should have the right to participate fully in the proceedings as it does continue to represent employees affected by the application. It also submitted that the representation vote in this application cannot affect Local 183’s prior outstanding right to certification pursuant to a representation vote held on May 5, 1998 in Board File No. 0399-98-R.
The Board directed that the representation vote be conducted on May 7, 2001 in the instant application. The application stated that the only unrepresented trades at work on the application date were plumbers and plumbers’ apprentices. Contrary to the assertion of Local 183, the applicant did not, in its application, indicate that this application was a displacement application nor did it suggest that the name of Local 183 appear on the ballot. That representation vote has already taken place using a ballot in which employees were asked whether they wished to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party. Therefore, the relief sought by Local 183 in its request for reconsideration in respect of the taking of the representation vote and form of the ballot is moot.
Local 183 acknowledged that it had failed to comply with the Board’s Rules with respect to the filing of its intervention. The Board, in its May 3, 2001 decision did note, however, that its “determination…with respect to the timeliness of the intervention does not preclude Local 183 from seeking leave of the Board to intervene in the proceedings after the representation vote is conducted.” The extent, if any, of Local 183’s participation in the proceedings is a matter that can best be determined by the panel of the Board assigned to deal with this matter. Similarly, the effect, if any, of this proceeding on the proceeding in Board File No. 0399-98-R is also best dealt with by the panel of the Board assigned to deal with this matter.
The Board also notes that the responding party filed a response to the application on May 4, 2001 (the date it was received by the Board). That response was untimely and has not been considered by the Board up to this point in the proceeding. The applicant, on May 4, 2001 also filed an application under section 96 of the Act and an application for consent to institute a prosecution. The applicant asserted that the conduct of the responding party and its principal will like result in the representation vote failing to disclose the true wishes of the employees affected. It requested that the ballot box be sealed.
There is no proper basis for the Board to reconsider its decisions in this matter directing a representation vote and finding that the intervention of Local 183 was untimely and proceeding with a representation vote based on the material filed by the applicant (as both the intervention and response were untimely). Therefore the application for reconsideration is hereby dismissed.
This matter is referred to the Registrar so that following the expiry of the time for filing representations in respect of this application, this matter can be listed for hearing together with the pending applications under section 96 of the Act and for consent to prosecute filed by the applicant against the responding party and its principal.
This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board