Rick Roberts v. District 2A, Transportation, Technical, Warehouse, Industrial and Service Employees Union
Rick Roberts, Applicant v. District 2A, Transportation, Technical, Warehouse, Industrial and Service Employees Union Affiliated with American Maritime Officers, Responding Party v. Sobeys Ontario, a division of Sobeys Capital Inc. c.o.b. as Sobeys Whitby Retail Support Centre, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 20, 2001
1The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") for a declaration that the responding party ("District 2A") no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
2This application was filed on December 17, 2001. The employees who are affected by this application are covered by a collective agreement between the responding party and Sobeys Ontario, a division of Sobeys Capital Inc., with an effective date of March 1, 1999, until February 28, 2005. Having regard to the provisions of section 63(2) of the Act, the Board finds that this application is timely.
3UFCW (Canada) and the CAW have filed applications for certification with respect to the employees affected by this application as Board Files No. 2472-01-R and 2483-01-R (the "certification files"). By decision dated December 18, 2001 the Board directed a representation vote of the employer's employees with respect to the certification files. The employees will have the option to make a "no-union" choice on the ballot. The December 18, 2001 decision also consolidated this termination application with the matters before the Board at that time. In the certification applications there is a dispute about whether District 2A represents the employer's full-time and part-time employees or just full-time employees. District 2A and the employer take the position that District 2A represents full-time employees only.
4It is apparent from the information contained in the response and intervention to this termination application that more than forty per cent of full-time employees have indicated that they no longer wish to be represented by the responding party. In addition, section 63(8) of the Act does not permit the Board to hold a hearing to determine whether forty per cent or more employees in the bargaining unit appear to have expressed a wish not to be represented by a trade union. Having regard to the fact that there is no numerically relevant dispute between the parties to this application about the number of employees in the bargaining unit, the Board would have directed that a representation vote be taken. However, since the representation vote scheduled for today includes a "no-union" option, it is not necessary to do so. The representation vote being held today is, by reason of our decision of December 18, 2001 (and this decision) consolidated with the certification and termination applications. The termination application will therefore be determined by the vote being held today.
5District 2A has several objections to the Board's December 18, 2001 decision and requests that the Board not deal with this termination application as part of Board File Nos. 2472-01-R and 2483-01-R. The Board disagrees. In a vote being held today, the full-time employees (and the part-time employees) are being asked whether they wish to be represented by one of three unions or no union at all. The outcome of the representation vote will then be entirely dispositive of this termination application. There is no reason not to treat this termination application together with the certification files pursuant to section 111(3)(a) of the Act.
6District 2A also alleges that this application should be set aside as it was filed after the application for certification and there must be "some closure to these proceedings". It is the Board's view that "closure" can only be achieved by consolidating these applications which will allow the representation vote held today to determine the true wishes of the employees. In addition, there is absolutely nothing that precludes an applicant for termination of bargaining rights to file this application to "facilitate" an application for certification as is alleged by the responding party.
7The Board wishes to reiterate the comments it made in its decision of December 18, 2001. The Board's purpose for ordering a vote with all choices is to ascertain the true wishes of the employees. The Board again urges the parties to respect the wishes of the employees as demonstrated through the ballot box.
8The employer is directed to forthwith post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to all copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Termination of Bargaining Rights" posted previously. These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
9Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for termination of bargaining rights, other than status disputes, 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. 5: Status Disputes in Termination Applications (Non-Construction).
10The matter is referred to the Registrar.
"Brian McLean"
for the Board