M. Levinson

The employer filed a complaint alleging the union violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate a renewal of the collective agreement for the Kitchener plant unless bargaining was conducted on a national basis for a master agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's insistence on national bargaining to the point of impasse was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act, which limits bargaining rights to the provincial jurisdiction.

The Board directed the union to cease its violation and return to the bargaining table to negotiate a lawful collective agreement for the Kitchener plant.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act by altering employee privileges while a certification application was pending.

The employer and the incumbent union (intervener) argued the Board should not inquire into the complaint because there was a subsisting collective agreement, the certification application was untimely, and the matter should be deferred to arbitration.

The Board held that section 79(2) applies even when there is an incumbent union and declined to defer to arbitration, noting the complainant was not a party to the collective agreement.

The Board also reconsidered its initial ruling and granted the intervener status to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed petitions in opposition to the union, which, if voluntary, would normally cause the Board to order a representation vote.

The Board found that the petitions were not voluntary because they were circulated in the presence of a lead person perceived as having managerial authority, and because the plant manager had created an atmosphere of concern for job security by mentioning possible plant closure and calling employees into his office.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should be ordered.