0911-01-R Accel Electrical Employees Association, Applicant v. Accel Electrical Contractors Limited, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 27, 2001
This is an application for certification filed under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 c.1 as amended (the “Act”). This application was filed on June 22, 2001. The Chair of the Board authorized me pursuant to section 110(14)(a) of the Act to sit alone to hear and determine this matter.
It does not appear that the applicant has established that it is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) and 126(1) of the Act in any previous proceeding before the Board. The Board does note that the applicant, by its counsel, declared that it is a trade union that according to established trade union practice pertains to the construction industry. In my view, that declaration is not sufficient. The applicant will therefore be required to establish not only that it is a trade union under the Act, but must also be prepared to establish that it is a trade union within the meaning of section 126(1) of the Act when the hearing of this matter convenes before the Board.
The responding party was duly served with the application on June 22, 2001, according to the Certificate of Delivery filed by the applicant and filed its response with the Board within the time stipulated by Rule 135 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.
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 applicant at the time the application was made.
This is an application for certification within the meaning of section 128 of the Act. The applicant is not an affiliated bargaining agent of a designated employee bargaining agency. Accordingly, this application is made pursuant to section 158(4) of the Act.
The applicant has advised the Board that the responding party employed only electricians, electrical apprentices and electricians’ helpers on the application date. This information has been confirmed by the responding party.
The applicant proposed a bargaining unit encompassing the entire province of Ontario. The responding party agreed with the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit. The application and response make reference to work being performed in Board Areas 7 and 8 on the application date. In my view, a provincial unit is not appropriate, despite the parties’ agreement. Rather, when an application for certification is made under section 158(4) of the Act, the Board will find that a bargaining unit limited to those Board geographic areas in which there are employees working on the application date is an appropriate unit. A unit that encompasses Board areas in which there are no employees working on the application date is not, in my view, an appropriate bargaining unit. See Freure Construction Limited, [1991] OLRB Rep. Mar. 309.
Accordingly, as the responding party and the applicant agreed that the only persons employed on the application date were electricians, electrician apprentices and electricians’ helpers, the Board finds that all electricians, electrician apprentices and electrician’s helpers in the employ of Accel Electrical Contractors Limited in all sectors of the construction industry in the County of Wellington and the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York, the Towns of Oakville and Halton Hills and that portion of the Town of Milton within the geographic Townships of Esquesing and Trafalgar, and the Towns of Ajax and Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham, save and except non-working foremen and persons above the rank of non-working foreman constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.
Having regard to the Board's finding as to the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all electricians, electrician apprentices and electricians’ helpers employed with Accel Electrical Contractors Limited, in the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York, the Towns of Oakville and Halton Hills and that portion of the Town of Milton within the geographic Townships of Esquesing and Trafalgar, and the Towns of Ajax and Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Regional Municipality of Durham (except for the Towns of Ajax and Pickering), the geographic Township of Cavan in the County of Peterborough and the geographic Township of Manvers in the County of Victoria save and except supervisors and those above the rank of supervisor, office and clerical staff.
The vote will be held on June 29, 2001. Vote arrangements are set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Meeting".
The responding party is directed to post copies of the application for certification, the “Notice to Employees of Application for Certification”, this decision and the "Notice of Vote and of Meeting" in a location or locations where they are most likely to come to the attention of those individuals who are eligible to vote.
All individuals who were employed by Accel Electrical Contractors Limited and at work in the voting constituency on June 22, 2001 are eligible to vote.
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.
Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue relating to the application for certification which remains in dispute, other than status disputes, must file a detailed statement of representations and all material facts upon which they rely with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received 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. 9: Status Disputes in Certification Applications in the Construction Industry.
This matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board