Union of Canadian Correctional Officers - CSN v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service Canada) and Public Service Alliance of Canada
142-2-356, 150-2-49 (2000 PSSRB 106)
- Before: Y. Tarte
- Appearances: Decided without an oral hearing
- Decision Rendered: 2000-11-28
Certification – Displacement – Correctional Services Group – Representation vote ordered by mail ballot - on July 19, 1967, the Board certified the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) as bargaining agent for the following two bargaining units: Correctional Group (supervisory) and Correctional Group (non-supervisory): (146-2-7) – on June 16, 1999, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Service Reform Act, the Board amalgamated these two bargaining units into one, namely the Correctional Services Group bargaining unit: (142-2-341) – on May 25, 2000, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO-CSN) applied for certification for this bargaining unit as well as for revocation of the PSAC's certification therefor – the incumbent bargaining agent, the PSAC, applied to intervene in both of these applications – in light of subsection 41(2) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Board decided to deal first with the application for certification – because there was some dispute between the parties regarding membership in the bargaining unit, the Board appointed two of its officers to enquire into the matter and report back to the Board – the report of the Board's officers established that the parties agreed to the names of 5,176 employees out of a total of 5,831 possible employees – there were therefore 655 names in dispute – as the UCCO-CSN had submitted evidence of the support of a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit, it requested the Board to certify it and not to order a representation vote – the PSAC, on the other hand, requested the Board to order a representation vote as was its usual practice in a displacement application – the Board concluded that UCCO-CSN had failed to establish that the circumstances of this displacement application were such as to require the Board to deviate from its usual practice – the Board, therefore, ordered that a representation vote be held among the employees in the bargaining unit by mail ballot – the 655 disputed persons would be allowed to vote, but their ballots would be segregated and would only be counted if the outcome of the vote was otherwise inconclusive.
Representation vote ordered.