Service Employees International Union Local 528 v. Service Employees International Union Local 210 and Windsor Raceway Inc.
3128-00-R Service Employees International Union Local 528, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union Local 210, Responding Party Trade Union v. Windsor Raceway Inc., Responding Party Employer.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 30, 2001
1This is an application under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) for a declaration that the applicant has acquired the rights, privileges and duties of its predecessor Service Employees International Union, Local 210 (“Local 210”), by reason of a merger, amalgamation or a transfer of jurisdiction. The responding party employer (“the employer”) takes no position on the merits of the application, except as set out in paragraph 4 below. Local 210 supports the application.
2The Board has not previously found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as amended. The materials filed by the applicant do not assist in making a determinatin of the applicant’s status.
3Representatives and members of locals of the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”), including the applicant and the alleged predecessor trade union (“Local 210”), have been engaged in discussions with a view to creating a single racetrack and gaming local. The applicant is that designated local.
4This application is brought in respect of three bargaining units. The applicant contends that there are a total of 75 employees in these three bargaining units, whereas the employer alleges that there are a total of 64 employees. The applicant and the employer do not agree on the bargaining unit description of the bargaining unit comprising janitorial employees.
5There appears to be no dispute that a notice of a November 14, 2000 meeting (for the purpose of discussing and endorsing the creation of the single racetrack local) was mailed to all members of the three bargaining units. A vote was taken at that meeting. The applicant alleges that the result of the vote was ten to one in favour of transferring bargaining rights to Local 528. However, the document filed in support of that allegation indicates that the membership of an entity referred to as “SEIU Local 639” voted on the question as to whether or not to unite several SEIU locals (not including Local 210) to form a single racetrack and gaming local.
6The Board is not satisfied at this point that it is appropriate to make the declaration sought by the applicant without further clarification of the issues herein raised. The document referred to in paragraph 5 above may have been filed in error. Moreover the applicant did not specify by bargaining unit the number of employees in each, and therefore it is not clear what the general vote results from the November 14, 2000 meeting mean on a bargaining unit by bargaining unit basis. It may be, for example, that all the voters were from only one or two of the bargaining units, and yet the application purports to effect the transfer of bargaining rights in respect of all three bargaining units to the applicant.
7The applicant is directed to file submissions with respect to the concerns raised by the Board in this decision. The applicant is also directed to file materials in support of its claim that it is a trade union. Those submissions and materials are to be delivered and filed on or before Wednesday, May 9, 2001. To the extent Local 210 and the employer wish to reply to the submissions of the applicant, they are directed to file and deliver their replies by Friday, May 11, 2001. The Board will then consider this matter further.
8We are seized.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board