Parties
2335-00-R Service Employees International Union, Local 268, Applicant v. Algoma District Services Administration Board, Sault Area Hospitals and The Corporation of the Township of White River, and The North Algoma Health Organization, Responding Parties v. Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2352; Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3178; Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 3631, Intervenors v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Intervenor v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 25, 2001
Decision
The Board is in receipt of correspondence from counsel for the intervening locals of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (who I shall refer to collectively as “CUPE”) wherein he advises that the parties have reached an agreement concerning arrangements for a representation vote among certain employees of the Algoma District Services Administration Board (“ADSAB”) on May 15, 2001. Counsel further advises that ADSAB has agreed to provide the competing trade unions in the representation vote with an employee list containing names but not home addresses or telephone numbers at which those employees can be reached. Counsel for CUPE contends that the Board should order ADSAB to provide those addresses and phone numbers, and relies upon a previous Board decision in St. Joseph’s Health Care, Hamilton et. al., dated March 9, 2001, in Board File No. 2378-00-PS. The reason advanced by CUPE is that many of the employees eligible to vote are part-time employees whose work is not performed “on the road” and not in an identifiable workplace, thus making it difficult for the competing trade unions to communicate with eligible voters.
Counsel for ADSAB objects to the provision of home addresses and telephone numbers, although it has provided the competing trade unions with a voters’ list containing workplace locations, employee names and their positions. Counsel relies for its objection upon the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-56. Furthermore, she points out that ADSAB’s employees provide social services to the community, and that many of the employees wish to keep their personal information private. In the alternative, if the Board is of the view that more information should be provided to the competing unions, counsel for ADSAB requests that the information be restricted to home addresses only, and relies upon a decision of the Board in The Ottawa Hospital, dated February 8, 1999 (Board File No. 0141-98-PS).
Having considered the submissions of CUPE and ADSAB, and in balancing the interests of all concerned, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case to order that ADSAB provide the home addresses only of the employees whose names appear on the voters’ list provided by ADSAB to the competing trade unions.
We order ADSAB to provide to the competing trade unions in this matter, in addition to the information already provided with respect to workplace locations, employee names and their positions, the last known home address of each such employee as contained in ADSAB’s records, and to do so on or before Tuesday, May 1, 2001.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board