Maureen Kirincic

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer alleged that a former supervisor, acting on behalf of the union, used intimidation and coercion to convince employees to join, and requested a representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found no evidence that the supervisor was acting on behalf of the union or that her statements about potential job losses and shift changes constituted threats or undue influence.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The union's constitution restricted membership to employees of a different company, and the union had no established practice of admitting persons to membership without regard to these eligibility requirements.

Applying section 105(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Board found that the employees could not be considered members of the applicant.

The application for certification was dismissed.

Two unions applied for certification of the respondent's employees.

The incumbent union, UFCW, argued that its existing collective agreement with the predecessor employer automatically renewed and acted as a bar to the applications.

The applicant, CAW, argued that UFCW had abandoned its bargaining rights by failing to enforce the collective agreement for over a year after the respondent purchased the plant.

The Board found that the UFCW's decision not to enforce the agreement was a strategic choice to allow the new employer to establish itself financially, not an abandonment of bargaining rights.

The Board held that the collective agreement automatically renewed and constituted a bar to the certification applications, which were accordingly dismissed.

The applicant employee association applied for certification.

The intervener union challenged the application, alleging improprieties in the membership evidence and the Form 9 declaration, as well as employer interference.

The Board found that the Form 9 declarant did not make the necessary reasonable inquiries and that the amended Form 9 contained material misrepresentations regarding the collection of membership cards and fees.

Consequently, the Board rejected the Form 9 declarations as improper and unreliable.

Without a valid Form 9, the membership evidence was given no weight, and the application for certification was dismissed.