Keith Oleksiuk

The complainant, a prime coater operator, alleged he was suspended for exercising his right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer maintained the complainant was suspended for insubordination after refusing a direct order to clean a paint roller while the line was stopped, not for safety reasons.

The Board found the employer's witnesses more credible, concluding the complainant was ordered to do the work when the machine was down and that his refusal was not motivated by health and safety concerns.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, filing membership evidence for more than 55 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The objectors alleged that union organizers misled employees by stating that the initiation fee was one dollar during the campaign but would be ten dollars later, thereby coercing them into signing membership cards.

The Board found that while one organizer improperly used the two-tier fee structure as a sales tactic, the remaining membership evidence was reliable and still represented more than 55 per cent of the unit.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to order a representation vote and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his discharge grievance to arbitration and by failing to properly represent him in other matters.

The Board found that the union had considered the merits of the grievance, including the complainant's disciplinary record and the likelihood of success at arbitration, before the membership voted against proceeding.

The Board concluded that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated voting procedures under the Labour Relations Act during a contract ratification meeting.

The union presented a combined ballot asking employees to either accept the company's final offer or authorize a strike, and refused requests to split the ballot.

The Board found that the union was entitled to structure the ballot to reflect the collective bargaining reality and bring negotiations to a head.

The Board also dismissed allegations of intimidation and found that, despite defects in the notice of the meeting, no employees were deprived of the opportunity to vote.

The complaint was dismissed.