3 total
Union's successor rights and related employer applications dismissed regarding brewery's subcontracting of hospitality services.
The applicant union alleged that Molson's Brewery transferred part of its business to two subcontractors, Charming Hostess Inc. and Amsterdam Catering Services Limited, or alternatively, that the three entities should be treated as a single employer under the Labour Relations Act.
Molson's had closed its internal hospitality room and contracted with the respondents to provide upgraded food and hostess services in a new facility.
The Board found that Molson's had not disposed of part of its business but merely contracted for services to enhance its own operations.
The Board also declined to make a related employer declaration, noting the subcontractors were independent businesses and the union was attempting to extend, rather than preserve, its bargaining rights.
The applications were dismissed.
Employer committed unfair labour practice by subcontracting work and terminating employees to avoid collective bargaining.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer unilaterally subcontracted the work of its housekeeping, laundry, maintenance, and kitchen staff, terminating approximately one quarter of the bargaining unit.
This occurred during negotiations for a first collective agreement.
The Board found that the employer's decision was motivated by anti-union animus and a desire to avoid collective bargaining, violating several provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
Furthermore, the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose and discuss its subcontracting plans during negotiations.
The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the terminated employees, compensate them for lost wages, and commence bargaining in good faith.
Resident superintendents included in comprehensive cleaning and maintenance bargaining unit due to shared community of interest.
The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit comprising cleaning and maintenance staff employed by the respondent.
The sole issue was whether resident superintendents should be excluded from the unit on the basis that they were part-time employees or had a separate community of interest.
The Board found that the resident superintendents regularly worked more than 24 hours per week and shared a community of interest with the full-time maintenance crews.
The Board concluded that a single comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate and issued a certificate.
