R. D. Joyce

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred when the respondent purchased a plant and equipment from a predecessor company.

The Board found that the predecessor had ceased operating the plant 18 months prior to the transaction and that the respondent, which had been operating a parallel business, purchased idle assets to improve its own existing business.

The Board concluded that there was no transfer of a part of the predecessor's business that supported the employment of the employees represented by the applicant, and therefore dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer to the predecessor company under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under section 1(4).

The predecessor's business had been placed in receivership, and the respondent subsequently leased the premises, purchased equipment, hired former employees, and temporarily manufactured the predecessor's product line under the predecessor's trade name before transitioning to safety footwear.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred within the meaning of section 55.

The Board declined to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 55(5), finding that the change from casual to safety footwear did not constitute a substantial change in the character of the business.

The section 1(4) application was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing the parties to bargain in good faith.

During a mediation meeting, the respondent tabled new proposals and insisted they be resolved before any economic issues or the union's prior proposals could be discussed.

The Board found that the respondent's insistence on limiting discussion to its own pre-conditions restricted the rational, informed discussion required by the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board concluded the respondent failed to comply with the previous order and directed the filing of the determination with the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had withdrawn from a joint bargaining structure at the last minute, accepted a settlement for its Montreal plant but not its Bramalea plant, and resurrected a previously settled issue regarding manning after a six-month strike.

The Board found no bad faith in these actions, as the employer was entitled to evaluate its economic interests and reappraise its position.

However, the Board found the employer bargained in bad faith with a second local by refusing to negotiate its proposals until a settlement was reached with the first local.

The employer was ordered to meet and bargain in good faith with the second local.