David Brisbin

The appellant association of milk transporters appealed a decision by the respondent dairy board granting a 2% increase in the labour component of the Transport Rate Formula for 2000, seeking a 3% increase instead.

The appellant argued that milk truck drivers perform specialized duties as bulk tank milk graders and that a 3% increase was necessary to remain competitive with industry-wide wage growth.

The respondent contended that the 2% increase was equitable as it matched the increase given to its own staff.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that current market factors and industry wage settlements supported a 3% increase.

The union brought an application for a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89.

The union alleged that the employer's purchase of a non-unionized plant, transfer of work, and subsequent layoff of bargaining unit employees were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by bona fide business reasons, including the declining market and obsolete equipment at the unionized plant.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.

The Board granted the related employer declaration on consent but declined to extend the geographic scope of the collective agreement to the non-unionized plant.

The complainant union filed complaints under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work assignments by the respondent employers to another union.

The complainant sought directions binding on other jobs and against respondents other than the specific employers complained about.

The Board held that the appropriateness of a direction binding on other jobs under section 91(2) is a matter for the merits hearing.

The Board also ruled that it has jurisdiction under section 91(1) to make directions against persons other than the party being complained about, leaving the application of this jurisdiction to the merits hearing.