Michael Gottheil

The applicant, a leadhand, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights and circulated a petition in support.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found that the applicant's position as a leadhand with power to effectively recommend discipline, combined with his family relationship to the plant manager, would cause reasonable employees to perceive him as closely aligned with management.

Consequently, the Board was not satisfied that the petition represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a manufacturer of diffusers, brought a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a work assignment dispute.

The respondent union had filed a grievance against a contractor, Megatech, alleging a violation of a subcontracting clause for purchasing diffusers from the complainant.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 91(1) to entertain the complaint because the respondent union did not require the complainant to assign the work to its members, nor did it use Megatech as an agent to do so.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act during the negotiation of a mine closure agreement.

The complainants argued that the negotiating committee should have been elected, members should have been consulted, the agreement should have been subject to a ratification vote, and more pension information should have been provided.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union acted reasonably and in the best interests of the employees given its lack of bargaining power and the company's refusal to allow a ratification vote.

The Board also found no obligation to elect the negotiating committee and concluded that sufficient information had been provided to members.

The complainants, who were laid off, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to process their grievances to arbitration.

The union's grievance committee had determined that the grievances lacked merit because the employer's initial failure to post the positions violated the collective agreement, and processing the grievances would undermine the seniority provisions.

Despite a general membership vote supporting the grievances, the committee, after consulting with a union staff representative, maintained its refusal.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union directed its mind to relevant labour relations considerations and did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.