Ontario Labour Relations Board
0164-01-R Allied Construction Employees, Local 1030 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Erro-Wood Construction, Responding Party v. Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183, Intervenor
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J.G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 30, 2001
1The applicant and the intervenor have filed submissions in this matter in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure following the representation vote conducted pursuant to the Board’s decision of April 19, 2001 and a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer. Those parties have raised a number of issues in their submissions, including but not limited to the timeliness of the section 8.1 notice filed by the responding party, challenges to the list of employees, the failure by the applicant to identify the job sites where persons who were working in the bargaining unit on the day of application were actually doing such work, the description of the appropriate bargaining unit and the conduct of the intervenor on the day of the vote.
2With respect to the timeliness of the section 8.1 notice, the applicant asserts that the notice was untimely because the responding party did not deliver and file the notice until April 18, 2001 while the applicant delivered the application to the responding party on April 12, 2001. Section 8.1(3) requires that the notice must be given within two days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) after the day on which the employer received the application. Section 29(1) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-11 defines “holiday” as including both Good Friday and Easter Monday. Good Friday was April 13, 2001 and Easter Monday was April 16, 2001. Therefore, two days after April 12, 2001, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays is April 18, 2001. The section 8.1 notice was timely.
3The intervenor submitted that the applicant must provide it with the names of the individuals who it asserts should have been included on the voters’ list. The applicant has done so in its submissions to the Board.
4The applicant also asserted that the section 8.1 notice was invalid because the responding party had not provided sufficient information in order for the Board to determine the matter. In our view, the section 8.1 notice contained in the response filed by the responding party is sufficient in that it contained all of the information required by section 8.1(2); that is the notice set out the description of the bargaining unit that the employer proposed, an estimate of the number of individuals in that bargaining unit and an estimate of the number of employees in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit.
5The applicant’s objections to the section 8.1 notice filed by the responding party are dismissed. The parties must therefore be prepared to present the evidence and representations with respect to the merits of the section 8.1 issue at the hearing of this matter, together with the other outstanding issues.
6The applicant requested that this matter be listed for hearing together with its application under section 96 of the Act (Board File No. 0659-01-U), as that unfair labour practice application relates to the conduct of the intervenor and responding party in this proceeding. The applicant submits that the two matters should be listed for hearing together since doing so “would avoid the need for any of the parties to present their evidence twice and would be the most expeditious and economical use of the resources of the parties and the Board.”
7This matter is referred to the Registrar to be listed for hearing on all of the outstanding issues raised by the parties together with the application made by the applicant in Board File No. 0659-01-U. The order in which the issues raised in this application and how the hearing of this application and the application in Board File No. 0659-01-U will proceed is a matter for the panel assigned to hear these two matters to determine.
8This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board