Graphic Arts International Union, Local 28-B v. Rolph-Clark-Stone Packaging, 1980 CanLII 838

[1980] OLRB Rep. July 1045

1435-79-U Graphic Arts International Union, Local 28-B, Complainants, v. Rolph-Clark-Stone Packaging, Ronalds-Federated Limited, Respondents.

BEFORE: E. Norris Davis, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members R.D. Joyce and H. Simon.

APPEARANCES: H. Goldblatt and C. Buhler for the complainants; John P. Sanders on, Q. C. and John A dams for the respondents.

DECISION OF THE BOARD: June 25, 1980

1. The parties are agreed that no remedy is sought against F.P. Publications Limited, and the style of cause is amended by deleting F.P. Publications as a respondent herein.

2. The Board, in its decision of January 8, 1980, [1980] OLRB Rep. Jan.93, made the following order:

"35. The Board orders the respondent to meet with the complainant Local 28-B and endeavour by a process of bargaining consistent with this decision, to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement.

36. The Board further directs that the parties request the services of a mediator in order to assist them in achieving a collective agreement."

37. By letter directed to the Board and dated March 21, 1980 the Complainant, Local 28-B, served notice of its desire to enforce the above order as an order or judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario. The Complainant's letter reads:

"In its decision of January 8, 1980, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that the Respondent, Rolph-Clark-Stone Packaging, meet with the Complainant, Local 28-B, and endeavour by a process of bargaining consistent with its decision to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to reach a collective agreement. The Complain­ant, Local 28-B, submits that the Respondent has failed to comply with the Board's order. Accordingly, and pursuant to the provisions of section 79(5), the Complainant, Local 28-B, wishes to enforce the determination of the Board as an order or judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario.

The Complainant respectfully requests that a 'show cause' hearing be scheduled as soon as possible in this matter at which the Respondent's non-compliance might be established. Attached hereto is a Statement of Particulars upon which the Complainant intends to rely at such hearing."

4. There is no dispute that both parties have complied with the Board's direction contained in paragraph 36 above. The complainant alleges that the respondent's conduct at a meeting on February 4, 1980, called by the Mediator, was not in compliance with the Board's order contained in paragraph 35 above.

5. It is necessary to summarize the history of the negotiations, as they are recorded in the Board's decision of January 8, 1980, between the parties in respect to renewal of collective agreements which expired December 31, 1978.

6. The complainant and the respondent were parties to two collective agreements made by the Council of Printing Industries of Canada on behalf of designated employers, including the respondent, and the complainant. That agreement became effective January 1, 1978 and ran through to December 31, 1978. The respondent withdrew from contract renewal negotiations conducted by the Council in respect to that agreement, and served notice that it would bargain n respect to the covered bargaining units on a single company basis. In previous renewal negotiations of 1977 and 1978, the structure of bargaining was for the respondent to 7irst conclude an agreement with Local I 2-L representing certain other employees of the respondent and then to proceed to conclude negotiations with the complain­ant, Local 28-B

7. Renewal negotiations between the respondent and Local 12-L reached an impasse, resulting in a strike becoming effective on May 4, 1979. Members of Local 28-B then refused to cross the Local I 2-L picket line and requested the respondent to meet and bargain with Local 28-B in respect to its contract renewal demands. The respondent then refused the request to meet, characterizing it as "ludicrous". There were meetings between the respondent in August 1979 leading to a complete proposal being made by the respondent and which, at the insis­tence of the respondent, was placed before the Local 28-B membership and rejected on August 15, 1979. On August 18th the respondent commenced advertising for help.

8. On October 15, 1979 the respondent (who had up until then been bargaining "jointly but separately" with three other employer) refused a proposal for settlement advanced by Local 12-L. On October 29, 1979 a complaint was filed by both Local 12-L and Local 28-B alleging contraventions by the respondent of section 14 of the Act. The Board's order of January 8, 1980 was based on that complaint.

9. Following the filing of the complaint, the respondent and Local 12-L and Local 28-B met on November 6th, 8th and 19th. The Company insisted that the meeting be comprised of representatives of both bargaining units. On November 6th Local 28-B tabled a new proposal for settlement to which the respondent did not respond in the meetings of November 6th, 8th and 19th.

10. On February 4, 1980, following the Board's order, the parties met with a Mediator at which time the respondent, through its spokeman, John Adams, tabled a proposal headed "Company position as of February 4, 1980" and which read as follows:

"1. Deletion of Article 33 (Non-Craft) and Article 39 (Craft—picket line clause.

2. Article 30 (Non-Craft) and Article 36 (Craft) to be deleted and rewritten as follows:

'No Strikes—No Lockouts

.01 In view of the orderly procedures established by this agreement for the settling of disputes and the handling of griev­ances, the union agrees that, during the life of this agreement, there will be no strike, picketing, slowdown or stoppage of work, either complete or partial and the company agrees that there will be no lockout.

.02 The company shall have the right to discharge or otherwise discipline employees who take part in or instigate any strike, picketing, stoppage or slowdown, but a claim of unjust discharge or discipline may be the subject of a grievance and dealt with as provided in Article 29(35) of this agreement.

.03 Should the union claim that a cessation of work constitutes a lockout, it may take the matter up with the company at Step No. 3 of the grievance procedure.

.04 The union agrees that it will not involve any employee of the company, or the company, either directly or indirectly in any dis­pute which may arise between any other employer and the employees of such other employer.'

3. Deletion of Article 31 (Non-Craft) and Article 37 (Craft)—struck work clause.

4. Article 22 (Non-Craft) and Article 17 (Craft) to be deleted and re­written as follows:

'Regular Hours

The regular hours for all employees shall be 40 hours, both day and night shifts, with sole discretion for management to determine work schedules after due consultation with employees.'

5. Term of Agreement

Two years effective from the date of signing."

11. Adams states that, in tabling the proposal with Local 28-B representatives, he made the statement that those proposals would have to be resolved before the respondent could deal with economic issues. It is to be noted that the proposals relating to a 40 hour week and the term of the agreement are both clearly of economic impact, as Adams frankly conceded in his testimony. Charles Buhler, President of Local 28-B, testified that Adams' statement was to the effect that "these issues will have to be resolved before we can proceed" and which statement was repeated in reply to Buhler's further query as to whether, if those issues were resolved, the Company had any further proposals. The Board is satisfied that the respondent's position which was communicated to the complainant was that the respondent was not prepared to look at any items other than those proposed or to consider the Union's proposal of November 6, 1979 until those company proposals were resolved.

12. Local 28-B took the position that the proposals of February 4, 1980 were new issues which would require instructions from the membership, and the meeting of February 4th concluded. The Local 28-B membership subsequently rejected the Company's proposals and the Mediator so notified. No further meeting has been called by the Mediator, nor requested by either party.

13. The complainant argues that the respondent on February 4, 1980 established new significant pre-conditions to the discussions and that such conduct is a refusal to engage in rational, informed discussion as was required by the Board's order. The complainant further argues that the respondent's failure to enter into discussions of the Complainant's November 6th proposal, combined with its own February 4th proposals, was an effective disregard of all previous negotiations and therefore not in compliance with the Board's order "to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement".

14. The respondent argues that the effect of the Board's order of January 8, 1980 was merely to require the respondent to cease insisting on a joint bargaining structure between Local 12-L and Local 28-B. While the Board found that such insistence had led to a contra­vention of section 14 of the Act, the Board's order in connection therewith clearly has wider significance. Similarly, in the view which we take of the instant request, we do not find it necessary to examine into the respondent's argument that its February 4th proposals were justified by changes in the circumstances.

15. The duty of good faith bargaining imposed by section 14 of the Act and incorporated in the Board's order of January 8, 1980 was commented on in DeVilbiss (Canada) Limited, [1976] OLRB Rep. March 49 at p. 63,

"The duty reinforces the obligation of the employer to recognize the bar­gaining agent and, beyond this somewhat primitive though important purpose, it can be said that the duty is intended to foster rational, informed discussion thereby minimizing the potential "unnecessary" industrial conflict."

16. The narrow issue here is whether the respondent's conduct complied with the Board's order "to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement". In our view, the respondent's insistence that the discussion be limited to those issues identified by it until solutions to those issues satisfactory to the respondent were achieved, limit; the rational, informed discussion which the Board's order was intended to foster. The respondent has therefore failed to comply with the Board's order of January 8,

18. The Registrar is directed to file in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, a copy of the Board's determination of January 8, 1980, exclusive of the reasons therefore.