R. W. Kitchen

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the Meat Department employees of the responding party.

Objecting employees filed a statement of desire opposing representation by a different union, which the Board gave no weight because it predated the membership cards and referred to a different organizing drive.

The employer alleged that a union organizer engaged in intimidation during a prior organizing drive, but the Board dismissed the allegations without a hearing, finding no nexus to the current application.

Satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit had applied to become members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

The union sought to withdraw its certification application and related unfair labour practice complaint.

The respondent employer and objecting employees opposed the withdrawal, arguing the certification application should be dismissed with a bar on future applications under s. 105(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.

The Board allowed the union to withdraw the complaint without prejudice and dismissed the certification application without imposing a bar, finding no circumstances warranting a departure from its usual practice of not imposing a bar absent a representation vote or a series of unsuccessful applications.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the respondent's Leaf Division.

The parties agreed on most of the bargaining unit description but disputed whether seasonal employees should be included.

The respondent argued that the application was made out of season and seasonal employees should be excluded, relying on exceptions for canning and tobacco harvesting.

The Board found that the respondent's operations involved processing, not harvesting, and that the application was made in-season.

The Board concluded that seasonal employees shared a community of interest with permanent employees and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer requested that the geographic scope of the bargaining unit be limited to the City of Cornwall, where the existing plant was located.

The union requested a broader unit encompassing the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as the employer was constructing two new plants outside the municipal boundaries and intended to relocate there.

The Board held that where a relocation is intended at the time of certification and the new site is within the labour market of the existing site, the bargaining unit should embrace the planned move.

The Board found the broader unit appropriate and, being satisfied that more than 55 percent of the employees were members of the trade union, issued a certificate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the union, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The union argued the petition was not voluntary because the employer had announced new written policies and benefits shortly after receiving notice of the certification application, allegedly violating the statutory freeze.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's actions were part of an ongoing process and did not unduly influence the employees, concluding the petition was voluntary and directing a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member found the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze and unlawfully interfered with the employees' choice.