Ann Pollak

The union brought an application alleging that the responding party was a successor employer following the purchase of a bankrupt company's rubber division.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to its location in Elora, Ontario.

The Board found that the union and the predecessor employer had attempted to amend the collective agreement to expand its geographic scope in the event of a sale, but this arrangement effectively created two collective agreements or altered the term of operation without Board consent, violating the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the geographic scope clause did not cover the Elora location, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees sought to file a statement of opposition after the terminal date and requested an extension of time.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, noting that the employees had sufficient notice and time to file their objections.

As the union filed timely documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer engaged in a series of anti-union actions following certification, culminating in the layoff of a bargaining unit employee and the removal of a secretary from the unit.

The Board found that the employer's conduct demonstrated a persistent pattern of anti-union animus.

The Board concluded that the layoff was motivated by anti-union animus and ordered the employee's reinstatement with back pay.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the secretary, finding her removal was motivated by genuine business considerations related to her confidential duties.