International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 v. Dofasco Inc.
1245-01-R International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772, Applicant v. Dofasco Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 30, 2001
Decision
This is an application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
It 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 employer has filed four letters from employees purporting to revoke their membership with the applicant. Having regard to section 8(3) of the Act, these documents do not affect the Boards decision whether to order the vote. The Board also notes that one membership card was, on its face, signed more than one year prior to the application date. In addition, one card has its date crossed out and replaced with a new date.
The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all Stationary Engineers and Operators as defined in the Operating Engineers Act, save and except the Chief Engineer, Chief Operator, Supervisors and persons above the rank of Supervisor, employed by Dofasco Inc. in the City of Hamilton.
The vote will be held on August 1st and 8, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on July 25, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on July 25, 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.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the positions of coaches, specialists and shift supervisors should be included in the bargaining unit. If any individual holding such a position wishes to cast a ballot, the individual shall identify himself or herself as occupying a disputed position and such individual shall then be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot cast by such an individual shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
The employer has given the Board notice under section 8.1 of the Act. Under all of the circumstances it is not certain that the forty percent or more of employees in the bargaining unit applied for are members of the applicant. Accordingly, the ballot box will be sealed following the representation vote until the Board orders otherwise or the parties agree.
The 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.
Any 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).
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board