K. S. Davies

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The Board had to determine whether a discharged employee, who was ordered reinstated in a separate proceeding, should be included on the list of employees for the count.

The Board ruled she should be included, as she did not lose her employee status by being dismissed contrary to the Act.

The Board also refused to give weight to a petition faxed on the terminal date, as it violated the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the applicant's support fell below the required 45% threshold after accounting for voluntary re-affirmations of union support.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred and that the responding parties were related employers under common control or direction.

The union argued that a 'key person' from a unionized company left and subsequently started a new, non-unionized company in the same industry, thereby transferring the 'business'.

The Board found that the individual was no longer a 'key person' at the time of his departure, as the original company continued to grow and prosper without him.

Furthermore, due to a significant hiatus between his departure and the formation of the new company, there was no common control or direction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification during the open period of the intervenor's expired collective agreement with the responding party employer.

The intervenor subsequently gave notice under the Social Contract Act to revive and extend the expired collective agreement, and argued this retroactively closed the open period and rendered the certification application untimely.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objection, holding that the Social Contract Act does not manifest a clear legislative intent to operate retroactively to interfere with vested representation rights or invalidate an application that was timely when filed.

The Board directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties agreed that bargaining had broken down solely due to their respective positions, leaving the reasonableness of the employer's position as the only issue.

The employer insisted on a one-month loss of seniority provision for laid-off employees, which would effectively deny recall rights to its seasonal workforce.

The Board found this position to be uncompromising and without reasonable justification, noting the employer's reliance on administrative burden was unpersuasive given its computer systems.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights for employees at the intervener's store.

The applicants submitted two petitions in support of decertification.

The Board assessed whether the petitions represented a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

The Board found that the primary applicant was an unreliable witness and that the signatures were obtained in circumstances where employees might reasonably infer management support, particularly given the employer's non-solicitation policy, the posting of a petition on a visible bulletin board, and the involvement of an employee with a close nexus to management.

The Board concluded the applicants failed to establish voluntariness and dismissed the application.

One Board member dissented.

The trade union (Local 175) requested the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The employer objected, arguing Local 175 did not hold bargaining rights for the employees.

Local 175 claimed it was the successor to Local 206, which had been certified, due to a merger.

The Minister referred the question of his authority to appoint a conciliation officer to the Board under s. 107 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 175 conceded that the alleged merger occurred before Local 206 was certified, meaning the condition precedent for a successor declaration under s. 62(1) was not met.

The Board held that its powers under s. 107(2) are no broader than under s. 62(1).

Consequently, the Board could not declare Local 175 the successor trade union and advised the Minister that he lacked authority to appoint a conciliation officer at Local 175's request.