Bill Anderson

The Teamsters applied for certification of employees at a ready-mix concrete plant in Niagara Falls recently acquired by St. Lawrence Cement.

CLAC intervened, arguing the application was untimely because its existing collective agreement with St. Lawrence, which contained a province-wide geographic scope clause, already covered the Niagara Falls plant.

The Board found the scope clause ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of bargaining history.

The Board concluded that CLAC's bargaining rights were historically tied to specific plants and did not automatically extend to the newly acquired Niagara Falls operation simply because the employer applied a common trade name to it.

The Teamsters' application was therefore found to be timely.

The Labourers applied for certification to displace the Carpenters as the bargaining agent for employees of the employer.

The Carpenters filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer colluded with the Labourers by removing two carpenters from the bargaining unit and replacing them with employees who would vote for the Labourers.

The employer and the Labourers brought a motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board struck late allegations filed by the Carpenters but found that the core allegations narrowly made out a prima facie case, particularly given the reverse onus in section 96(5) of the Act.

The motion to dismiss was denied and the complaint was directed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union's main organizer had signed membership cards as a 'witness' without actually observing the employees signing them.

The employer and objecting employees argued this irregularity, along with allegations of intimidation and coercion by the organizer, should invalidate the membership evidence.

The Board found that the organizer's misrepresentation on the cards was innocent and did not undermine the reliability of the evidence.

The Board also dismissed the allegations of intimidation, finding no objective basis for them.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting on the reliability of the membership evidence.

During a hearing for a union certification application and unfair labour practice complaint, an issue arose regarding the witnessing of union membership cards.

The union requested the Board not inquire further into the issue.

The Board ruled it would hear evidence on the witnessing of the cards but declined to conduct a broad inquiry into the Form A-4 declaration, citing the need to protect the secrecy of membership evidence under section 113 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also admitted new evidence from objecting employees regarding additional cards, despite late disclosure, but adjourned that portion to allow the union time to prepare.