0. Hodges

The applicant union and intervener employer association requested reconsideration of a Board decision which found that a decision of the Joint Industry Committee (J.I.C.) was not binding on the respondent employer.

The applicants argued the Board made factual errors without hearing evidence and failed to recognize the J.I.C.'s authority.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employer had not consented to be bound by the J.I.C. decision and that the statute did not contemplate the J.I.C. exercising such authority over an individual employer without its consent.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees of the Chatham Horticulture Society.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the employees were employed in horticulture by an employer whose primary business is horticulture, falling under the exclusion in section 2(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the primary business of the Society is horticulture and that the employees in question spend the major portion of their time in the preparation, planting, and maintenance of gardens.

The Board concluded that the employees fall within the section 2(c) exclusion and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a council of trade unions, applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the applicant was a council of trade unions and whether its constituent locals were trade unions under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the charters and by-laws and found that the locals were trade unions and the applicant was a council of trade unions with the appropriate authority to act as a bargaining agent.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of the employee status of a newly appointed Research Officer.

The respondent employer argued the employee should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) as she was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the employee's involvement in collective bargaining was peripheral and merely incidental to her general duties, as she only gathered publicly available data and had no input into its use or access to confidential bargaining strategy.

The Board concluded the employee was not regularly and materially involved in labour relations matters and therefore was not excluded from the collective bargaining process.

The applicant trade union was certified to represent a bargaining unit.

Subsequently, the intervener trade union applied for certification for essentially the same group of employees and sought reconsideration of the earlier certificate, arguing it was issued during a period of build-up.

Another trade union also sought to intervene.

The applicant and respondent challenged the status of both unions to intervene following the issuance of a certificate.

The Board held that a trade union representing at least one employee in the bargaining unit has the necessary degree of interest to attain party status.

As both intervening unions met this requirement, the Board granted them intervener status to seek reconsideration of the earlier decision.