Cambridge Employees' Association v. Dan Hotel Company Limited, 1980 CanLII 774

Cambridge Employees' Association v. Dan Hotel Company Limited

[1980] OLRB Rep. December 1725

1277-80-R Cambridge Employees' Association, Applicant, v. Dan Hotel Company Limited, Taddy Hotel Company Limited and Gill Hotel Company operating under the name and style of Cambridge Motor Hotel, Respondent, v. Hotel, Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 75, Toronto, Ontario of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees' and Bartenders' International Union (A.F.L.-C.L.C.-C.I .0.), Intervener.

BEFORE: Ian C.A. Springate, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members D.B. Archer and F.W. Murray.

APPEARANCES: M. Horan and L. Danko for the applicant; J.P. Wearing for the respon­dent; and A. Ryder Q. C. for the intervener.

DECISION OF THE BOARD: December 3, 1980

1. The parties are in agreement that the name of the respondent on the style of cause should be amended to read "Dan Hotel Company Limited, Taddy Hotel Company Limited and Gill Hotel Company Limited operating under the name and style of Cambridge Motor Hotel".

2. This is an application for certification which also involves an application for certification by the intervener.

3. At the hearing the Board heard evidence concerning the applicant's status as a trade union. On the basis of this evidence we are satisfied that the following events occurred on or about July 17, 1980, namely:

4. a number of employees of the respondent met and voted to constitute themselves as a trade union to be known as Cambridge Employees Association ("The Association");

5. the employees considered a draft constitution for the Association. The draft constitution listed one of the objects of the Association as being to regulate relations between employees and employers. The draft constitution contained the type of provisions generally found in union constitutions;

6. the employees voted unanimously to approve the draft constitution;

7. the employees present applied for membership in the Association and paid a $1.00 to the Association as an initiation fee;

8. the members of the Association unanimously voted to ratify the constitution as previously approved;

9. officers were elected to fill the executive positions provided for in the constitution. There was no one nominated to fill the position of secretary, and a motion was carried to fill the position at a later date in accordance with the provisions in the constitution relating to executive vacancies;

We are satisfied that the steps set out above were sufficient to constitute the applicant as a trade union.

4. Counsel for the intervener contended that the applicant lacked status as a trade union, or was precluded from being certified by the provisions of section 12 of the Act, in that it had received employer support. This contention related to the manner by which Mr. Danko, the applicant's president, learnt of the name of Mr. Horan, the applicant's counsel. According to Mr. Danko, there had been an earlier proceeding before the Board in which the intervener had applied to be certified to represent the respondent's employees. Mr. Danko testified that he had been upset with the application and had asked the respondent's general manager for the name of a lawyer who was familiar with the Labour Board. Subsequently, Mr. Danko was given the name of Mr. Horan. Mr. Danko did not contact Mr. Horan at the time, and indeed it appears that Mr. Danko took no steps with respect to the earlier certification proceedings. The intervener withdrew its earlier application on June 2, 1980. Mr. Horan was later retained by Mr. Danko and certain other employees to act in this matter. The evidence establishes that Mr. Horan will be paid by the employees. The Board is of the view that although the manner in which Mr. Danko learned of Mr. loran's name may give rise to a concern about possible management support for the applicant, the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding that the applicant has received management support such as to deprive it of the status of a trade union or bar it from being certified pursuant to section 12 of the Act.

5. Having regard to our conclusions, set out above, the Board finds that "Cambridge Employees' Association" is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1 )(n) of The Labour

Relations Act.

6. As indicated earlier, both the applicant and intervener are currently seeking to be certified. Both propose different bargaining unit descriptions. However, it is clear that whatever unit the Board might find appropriate with respect to the intervener's application, the intervener has filed evidence of membership on behalf of fewer than thirty-five per cent of the employees in the unit. Accordingly, the intervener's request that it be certified is dismissed.

7. A certificate will issue to the applicant.