0969-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 24, 2001
1This is an application for certification.
2By decision dated July 4, 2001, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken in this matter on July 6, 2001.
3By correspondence dated July 13, 2001, the responding party filed a lengthy request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated July 4, 2001 directing a vote. (“Vote Direction Decision”).
4This application is scheduled for hearing before the Board on Monday, July 30, 2001 and Tuesday, July 31, 2001. The responding party may raise its request for reconsideration with the panel assigned to hear this matter on July 30 and 31, 2001. The issues raised in that request, including the question of whether or not certain determinations made in the Vote Direction Decision are final, are left to the panel assigned to hear this matter to do whatever it considers appropriate.
5The Board notes that the responding party had by letter dated July 5, 2001 made certain requests for disclosure relating to the “union cards”. Regrettably, that request was not brought to this panel’s attention until July 19, 2001 when the request for reconsideration was brought to the panel. As it turns out, a number of the items listed in the request for disclosure were already answered in the Board’s subsequent decision dated July 11, 2001.
6With respect to the outstanding items, the Board observes that all of the cards filed with the Board, other than the seven (7) cards referred to in the Board’s decision dated July 11, 2001, comply with the requirements of Rule 66 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. With respect to the responding party’s inquiry concerning the number, if any, of “union cards” which have the classification area filled in for positions that are not in the proposed unit of the Applicant (e.g. “Team Leader”, “Team Leader Development” and “Temporary Team Leader”), the Board suggests that the responding party’s concerns in this regard may be addressed by the following information. As a consequence of the responding party’s objection under section 8.1 of the Act, the Board compared the names of the individuals who signed cards (rather than their classification) against the list provided by the responding party of names of the individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party on the date of application and were in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification.
7As noted at paragraph 5 the Vote Direction Decision, the Board subsequently made the following finding:
After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant as against the information provided by the responding party, the Board finds that the numerical difference between the parties is significant. In the circumstances, the Board directs that the ballot box in the representation vote be sealed until the Board orders otherwise or the parties agree.
[emphasis added]
The responding party’s objection under 8.1 of the Act will be determined in the normal course by the panel assigned to hear this matter.
8The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision adjacent to each of the posted copies of the “Notice to Employees of Application for Certification” and of the “Notice of Vote and of Hearing” and copies of the Board’s decision dated July 4, 2001 and July 11, 2001. These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board