H. Stewart

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging that a union organizer engaged in improper conduct by offering to buy an employee's car, find a job for her boyfriend, and accepting a conditional payment of the membership fee.

The Board dismissed the employer's charges, finding that the organizer's conduct did not cross the bounds of acceptable salesmanship into coercion or fundamental misrepresentation, and that the conditional payment was not improper.

The Board consolidated the certification application with a related unfair labour practice complaint to hear evidence regarding a statement in opposition filed by objecting employees.

The union applied for certification.

The employer alleged that the union used threats and undue influence to obtain membership evidence from two employees.

The Board found the union's witnesses credible and dismissed the employer's charges, concluding no wrongdoing occurred.

The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment, which was sought because the employer's adviser was on a golf holiday, emphasizing the need for expedition in certification proceedings.

A certificate was issued to the union.

One Board Member dissented, finding the allegations of threats credible and would have ordered a vote.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent union was not entitled to represent the employees at the time a voluntary recognition agreement was entered into with the intervener employer.

The applicant conceded that the union had majority support but requested the Board exercise its discretion under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to order a representation vote.

The Board declined to order a vote, finding no evidence to justify upsetting the settlement between the union and employer.

The Board also declined the union's request for an order confirming its representative status, noting this would inappropriately grant it certified status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of Harwill Originals Limited.

The respondents argued that Harwill and Rosengarten Freedman Knitting Co. Ltd. should be treated as a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the two companies were under common control and direction and engaged in related activities.

To avoid undue fragmentation, the Board declared them a single employer and combined their employees into one bargaining unit.

Because the union had membership support of less than forty-five per cent in the combined unit, the application for certification was dismissed.