Brian McLean

The applicant union sought a declaration of successor rights, arguing that the opening of a Ruth's Chris steakhouse in the hotel premises formerly occupied by Trader Vic's constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the downtown location was a key asset transferred to the new restaurant.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a lease of space and that no part of the predecessor's business, other than the location itself, was transferred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant local union sought interim relief in connection with an unfair labour practice complaint, requesting an order directing the respondent employer to remit union dues to the local's officers rather than the trustee appointed by the parent union.

The local had purportedly disaffiliated from the parent union, which responded by placing the local under trusteeship.

The employer, caught in the middle, placed the dues in trust.

The Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the local had not made out an arguable case that the trusteeship or the employer's neutral stance constituted an unfair labour practice, and that the Board should not use its interim powers to confirm a dubious disaffiliation process.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to irregularities in the membership evidence (pre-witnessed cards).

The responding employer argued that the new membership evidence was tainted by the union's prior conduct, including an allegedly fraudulent unfair labour practice complaint and the earlier card irregularities.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh membership evidence and declined to dismiss the application or order a representation vote, distinguishing cases where actual fraud on the Board had occurred.

The applicant union sought to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

A representation vote was held.

The intervener and respondent requested that the vote be disregarded because the Board provided voting materials only in English and French, despite a large percentage of employees speaking Spanish or Punjabi.

They argued this violated the Human Rights Code and caused widespread confusion.

The Board reaffirmed its long-standing policy of providing documents only in English and French, noting that it is the responsibility of the parties to explain the process to employees who do not understand the official languages.

The request to retake the vote was denied.