K. Rogers

The applicant employer association filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the respondent union's unilateral implementation of a '50/50' hiring system.

For many years, employers had been permitted to 'name-hire' any union member without restriction.

The employers argued that the union was estopped from altering this past practice.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement designated the union as the sole agent for supplying employees and did not guarantee a right to name-hire.

The Board held that promissory estoppel did not apply because the union had previously interrupted the practice, putting employers on notice, and the employers had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a contractual right to name-hire.

The applicant union applied for certification, submitting documentary evidence of membership for over 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed statements of objection, including four individuals who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the origination and circulation of the opposition documents were heavily influenced by a managerial employee, with the employer's knowledge and support.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the statements of objection did not represent a voluntary change of heart.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification based on the documentary evidence.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a representation vote should have been ordered.

The union complained that the employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing it to provide employees with three additional paid holidays.

The employer had placed employees on a three-day temporary lay-off and subsequently paid them for those days, characterizing it as compliance with the order.

The Board found that the employer's actions reasonably met the minimum requirements of the order.

The Board also granted the employer time to respond to the union's request to reconsider the order to include two employees who had left the company prior to the original decision.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith by reneging on an offer regarding the length of the Christmas shutdown.

The employer had proposed a two-year renewal with 'no change', which both parties understood to mean an eight-day paid Christmas shutdown.

After the union membership voted to accept the offer, the employer attempted to schedule a five-day shutdown, claiming it had not agreed to specific dates.

The Board found that while the employer acted without ill intent, it violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by purporting to modify its offer after permitting the union to accept it.

The Board directed the employer to enter into a collective agreement reflecting the eight-day shutdown and to provide affected employees with three additional paid days off.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment to locate a 1968 collective agreement, arguing it might show the union abandoned its bargaining rights due to unfavourable terms.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the union stipulated the terms were unfavourable and the agreement would otherwise bar the application unless rights were abandoned.

Based on uncontradicted evidence that the union had not negotiated, grieved, collected dues, or contacted employees for over twelve years, the Board found the union had abandoned its prior bargaining rights.

The Board granted the certification application.