Ontario Labour Relations Board
0635-01-R Arlene Giroux, Applicant v. Local 183 Service Employees Int’l Union, Responding Party v. Lewisfoods Inc, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 30, 2001
1The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended ('the Act') for a declaration that the responding party no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
2The application was filed on May 25, 2001. Although it appears to be timely in light of the applicant’s assertion that the applicable collective agreement has expired some time ago, the application fails to set out a description of the unit of employees for which the responding party is the bargaining agent, as required in paragraph 3 of Form A-6 (“Application for Termination of Bargaining Rights under Section 63 of the Act”). As that paragraph makes clear, the description is usually found in the recognition or scope clause of the collective agreement. No copy of the collective agreement or of its recognition or scope clause was filed in this matter. Thus, it is not possible for the Board to determine a voting constituency for the purposes of holding a representation vote, if it were otherwise appropriate to order such a vote.
3The documentary evidence filed with the application, purporting to be an expression of the wishes of the employees not to be represented by the responding party, is in the form of photocopy of a letter dated April 26, 2001 to the president of the employer. The letter states that the signatories (whose signatures at the bottom of the letter are photocopied) request the president not to enter into any collective bargaining with the responding party because the signatories “are currently in the process of de-certification”. The letter goes on to state that the signatories “expect to complete this process prior to May 15th, 2001.”
4This application must be dismissed. The Board is not satisfied the documentary evidence described in paragraph 3 of this decision is, as required by section 63(5), an appearance of the expression of a wish not to be represented by the trade union at the time the application was filed. Had a dated original document, containing the original signatures of the employees, and containing a clear expression that those signatories no longer wish to be represented by the responding party, been filed with the Board, we would have ordered a representation vote had we been able to determine the voting constituency.
5This application is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a fresh, properly completed, application.
6The employer is directed to post copies of this decision immediately, in a location or locations where it is likely to come to the attention of employees affected by the application. These copies must remain posted for a period of 30 days from the date of this decision.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board