0408-01-R Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A.) Local 2995, Applicant v. North Star Linen & Uniform Services Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF VICE-CHAIR BRAM HERLICH AND BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK: May 7, 2001
This is an application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant (see section 8(3) of the Act), that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of North Star Linen & Uniform Services Inc. in the district of Timmins-Baie James, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman.
The vote will be held on May 9, 2001. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on May 2, 2001, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on May 2, 2001, the certification application filing date, include employees who were not at work on that date, so long as there is a reasonable expectation of their return to employment.
There is a dispute between the parties as to the geographic scope of the bargaining unit. The responding party employer proposes that the bargaining unit be restricted to employees working at 39 Riverside Drive, Kapuskasing. The union asserts that some six further employees working at 2 other locations (one in Hearst and one in Kapuskasing) ought to be included in the unit. Any employees from those other locations who seek to mark a ballot will be permitted to do so. Any such ballots, however, will be segregated and not counted except by order of the Board or on agreement of the parties.
We note as well that the responding party, while it agrees with the applicant’s estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit, disagrees with and asserts that the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant could not be appropriate. It has filed a notice pursuant to section 8.1.
However, the Board has had the opportunity to review all of the materials filed and is satisfied that, whether in relation to bargaining unit proposed by the applicant or by the responding party, any numerical discrepancies are not significant for the purposes of section 8.1. Accordingly, there is no need to seal the ballot box.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to each of the posted copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, other than status disputes, including any matters relating to the representation vote, must file a detailed statement of representations with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received by the Board within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken. Representations with respect to any status dispute must be made in accordance with the directions provided in Information Bulletin No. 4: Status Disputes in Certification Applications (Non-Construction).
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Bram Herlich”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON: May 7, 2001
I dissent.
A plain reading of the sections 8 and 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to seal the ballot box, when as in the instant matter an employer has given notice that it disagrees with the trade union’s estimate of the number of individuals in the unit described in the application for certification.
Subsection 8.1(4) requires the Board to seal the ballot box unless the trade union and the employer agree otherwise. Accordingly, I would have directed the ballox box to be sealed.
“J. A. Ronson”