0964-01-R Allied Construction Employees Local 1030, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Arista Homes Limited, Responding Party v. Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 on its own behalf and on behalf of its members, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 10, 2001
1The Board has now received submissions pursuant to its decision of July 4, 2001. After reviewing those submissions the Board considers it appropriate to exercise its discretion under section 111(3)(c) not to entertain this application.
2The applicant filed an application for certification on March 29, 2001. A representation vote was held with respect to that application on April 6, 2001. The ballot box was sealed and a hearing commenced on June 27, 2001. This application was also filed on June 27, 2001. Further hearing dates for the first application have been scheduled. Apparently seven individuals who might otherwise have been at work on June 27, 2001 were required by the responding party to be in attendance at the Board hearing as their status was challenged by the applicant in the first application. The applicant did not advise the parties that it was filing a second application. It now takes the position that the individuals whom it challenged, and who were therefore in attendance at the Board, were not at work on the date of this application and are therefore not entitled to vote in a representation vote. One of the outstanding issues in the first application is whether it should be dismissed pursuant to section 8.1 of the Act. The union wishes to have another vote held in this application as insurance in case it is unsuccessful in its claim that the section 8.1 objection has no merit.
3In these circumstances, the Board has decided not to entertain this application. It is not appropriate for the applicant to have two applications for certification for the same bargaining unit pending at the same time. There has been a recent representation vote in which the employees in this bargaining unit were asked if they wished to be represented by the applicant and the Board does not consider it appropriate to hold another representation vote with the same choice of trade union for exactly the same bargaining unit before there has been any determination with respect to the first one. Furthermore, the Board is troubled by the applicant’s tactic in choosing to file the application on a date in which it knew a significant number of potential voters would be in attendance at the Board given its position that their presence at the Board would disqualify them from voting. In these circumstances the Board considers it appropriate to deviate from its usual practice of holding a quick vote in almost every certification application.
4For the above reasons, this application is terminated.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board