[1980] OLRB Rep. February 214
1868-79-R Faultless-Doerner Manufacturing Inc., Stratford, Ontario Employees Association, Applicant, v. Faultless-Doerner Manufacturing Inc., Respondent.
BEFORE: Rory F. Egan, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members S. H. Lewis and E. C. Went.
APPEARANCES: Robert C. Kellington and Jeannette C. Germain for the applicant; Eric Bridges and Clifford Schott for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 8, 1980
The name of the respondent is amended to read: "Faultless - Doerner Manufacturing Inc.".
This is an application for certification in which the applicant is required to satisfy the Board that it is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of The Labour Relations Act.
Section 1(1)(n) of the Act reads as follows:
“1. (1) In this Act,
(n) 'trade union means an organization of employees formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between employees and employers and includes a provincial, national, or international trade union, a certified council of trade unions and a designated or certified employee bargaining agency.
The evidence disclosed that following the unsuccessful attempt by an outside union to gain certification, the management referred the association to a person who had been employed by the company in labour relations matters and whom the witness described as "a union buster". The Vice-President of the association told the Board that he was advised by the company's solicitor that he would have to deal directly with this consultant. This the Vice-President did. He obtained a draft of the by-laws from the consultant which he altered to suit the purposes of the association. He also testified that management had discussed the legality of the association with respect to the right to strike. Management had also advised the association when it had failed to elect officers to elect a panel for the purposes of negotiating. The evidence was that the progress of the association in adopting bylaws and proceeding to certification was discussed with management. While it appears that there was no direct input into the by-laws by management, there were discussions with respect to the content, in particular with regard to the right to strike. There were three or four organizational meetings held in the company cafeteria at which all employees attended and while those were, in the main, held at lunchtime and it had been the custom of the association to meet there, the meetings did run over into paid time.
Having in mind the continuing interference by the company with the affairs of the association and the company's interjection of itself into the attempt to change the association's status into that of a trade union, the Board finds that the applicant is not a trade union within the meaning of the definition set out above.
Furthermore, section 12 of the Act provides:
"The Board shall not certify a trade union if any employer or any employers' organization has participated in its formation or administration or has contributed financial or other support to it or if it discriminates against any person because of his race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry, age, sex or place of origin."
It follows that even if status were granted to the applicant, the Board, upon the above evidence, would be prohibited from certifying it because of the provisions of section 12.
- The Board, in view of all of the foregoing, has no recourse but to dismiss the application.