Court File and Parties
0176-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Responding Party v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175, Intervenor
0178-01-U National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 385, Applicant v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 and Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Responding Parties.
0179-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 385, Applicant v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175, Responding Party.
0203-01-R United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Applicant v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Responding Party v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Intervenor
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 20, 2001
Decision
1Board File No. 0176-01-R and 0203-01-R are applications for certification. The application in Board File No. 0176-01-R (“the CAW application”) was filed on April 17, 2001. The application in Board File No. 0203-01-R was filed on April 18, 2001. Both are brought in respect of employees of the responding party (“Coca-Cola”) employed in the City of Brampton.
2The Board finds that the applicants are trade unions within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 as amended (“the Act”).
3It would appear that Coca-Cola has recently commenced operation at a plant in Brampton. According to the responses of Coca-Cola there are only three employees working at this plant, a number with which the intervenor (“Local 175”) in the CAW application agrees. The applicant (“the CAW”) in the CAW application contends that there are 328 employees in its proposed bargaining unit. It goes on to identify four locations where the employees work, three of which exist in municipalities other than Brampton. Local 175, Coca-Cola and the applicant (“UFCW”) in the UFCW application contend that the bargaining rights of the employees in the Brampton plant are held by Local 175, or, as the UFCW contends, either by Local 175 or UFCW. The basis for that claim appears to lie in the alleged existence of collective agreements between Coca Cola and Local 175 at Coca Cola’s operations in Guelph and Hamilton, which contain language dealing with the eventuality of Coca-Cola transferring operations under those collective agreements to locations within a 50-mile radius. In its intervention, Local 175 claims that the Guelph location is being closed, and that employees from that location are being transferred to Brampton. In addition, Local 175 alleges that Coca-Cola’s operation in Hamilton will be “downsized” and employees there transferred to Brampton as well. If UFCW or Local 175 have bargaining rights pursuant to either of those collective agreements for the employees of Coca-Cola in Brampton, then it may be that both certification applications are untimely.
4Before considering whether a representation vote or votes should be held, we are of the view that the circumstances in these matters warrant an expedited hearing to deal with several preliminary issues. These are:
(i) Does UFCW or Local 175 hold bargaining rights for the employees of Coca-Cola in Brampton?
(ii) If not, are there any other impediments to the certification applications?
(iii) If not, how should the Board exercise its discretion under section 111(3) of the Act to deal with two applications for certification, filed one right after the other?
(iv) If a representation vote is directed should the ballot include both the CAW and one of UFCW and Local 175?
(v) Whether, to the extent a hearing on the merits of these matters is required, these files, as well as the related applications in Board Files No. 0178-01-U and 0179-01-R, should be heard together.
5The hearing with respect to the preliminary issues set out above, as well as any other issues identified by the panel assigned to deal with these matters, will take place on April 25, 2001 commencing at 9:30 a.m. in the “Board Room”, 2nd Floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
6The Manager of Field Services is directed to appoint a Labour Relations Officer as soon as possible to consult with the parties regarding the issues raised in these matters.
7Coca-Cola is directed to post copies of this decision in a location or locations in the workplace where it is likely to come to the attention of employees affected by these applications. Those copies must remain posted for a period of 30 days from the date of this decision.
8These matters are referred to the Registrar.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board