Michael Duden

The applicant union sought an order determining the effective date for the combination of several bargaining units at various retail stores of the responding party employer.

The Board had previously ordered the combination but reserved on the effective date.

The employer argued the combination should be effective only when every unit had entered into a collective agreement, while the union sought an immediate combination.

The Board found no reason to delay the combination, noting that deferring would not eliminate implementation complexities and that concluding terms for the units would be reached against the framework of an eventual combined unit.

The Board ordered the bargaining units combined effective immediately.

The applicant union sought to combine several bargaining units at various retail stores in Ontario under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to combine units that had already given notice to bargain and invoked statutory negotiation processes, and alternatively, that doing so would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to combine the units regardless of the stage of collective bargaining.

The Board found that combining the units would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation, and directed the combination of the units, while reserving on the effective date to allow the parties to address transitional issues.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement for part-time employees be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer conceded that collective bargaining had been unsuccessful and that it had adopted an uncompromising position regarding benefits.

The Board found that the employer lacked reasonable justification for its uncompromising stance, as its offer was not a 'cadillac' agreement and its fears of setting a precedent for full-time units were unfounded.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The respondent employer raised two preliminary objections.

First, it argued the applicant's name did not match the certified trade union.

The Board found this to be a mere technical irregularity and amended the applicant's name.

Second, the respondent argued the application was premature due to pending reconsideration requests regarding the underlying certification.

The Board agreed that the chaotic situation created by the multiple proceedings and the applicant's own challenge to its representation rights needed to be resolved first.

The Board adjourned the application sine die pending the disposition of the other proceedings.