Tom Oleson

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates in November and December 2001 due to the anticipated passage of Bill 130.

The applicant undertook to advise the Board by December 20, 2001, whether it would also seek to adjourn the January 2002 hearing dates.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that the responding party service providers and the community care access centre constituted a single employer.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that even if the prerequisites of section 1(4) were met, the Board should not exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board agreed, finding that the loss of work by the unionized service provider was due to a government-mandated competitive bidding process, not a scheme to defeat bargaining rights.

The Board concluded there was no labour relations mischief to remedy and dismissed the application without a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's wholesale division.

The parties disagreed on whether salesmen, fillers, part-time employees, and students should be included in the unit.

The Board found that the salesmen and fillers shared a community of interest with the warehouse and delivery employees, departing from its usual policy due to the specific operational integration.

The Board excluded students based on the employer's history of hiring them, but included part-time employees as there was no such history.

As the union demonstrated less than forty-five percent membership support in the determined unit, the application for certification was dismissed.