Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 210 v. The Corporation of the City of Timmins

[1980] OLRB Rep. May 656

2000-79-R Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 210, Applicant, v. The Corporation of the City of Timmins, Respondent, v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Intervener.

BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members H. J. F. Ade and C. Ballentine.

APPEARANCE AT THE HEARING: Gilles LeBel, Orval Turcotte and Normand Bilodeau appearing for the applicant; Corinne Murray and Garth Brillinger appearing for the respondent; and Pauline R. Anidjar appearing for the intervener.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 16, 1980.

1. This is an application under sections 2 and 4 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, S.O. 1977, c. 30. The purpose of this statute is to preserve bargaining rights and collective agreements that would otherwise terminate on the transfer of an undertaking from the Crown to an employer covered by The Labour Relations Act; or from "private sector" employers to the Crown. Transfers of this nature are not covered by the sale of a business section of The Labour Relations Act (see Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, [1975] OLRB Rep. Oct. 777).

2. The relevant provisions of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act are as follows:

"2. — (1) Where an undertaking is transferred from the Crown to an employer and a bargaining agent has a collective agreement with the Crown in respect of employees employed in the undertaking, the employer is bound by the collective agreement as if a party to the collective agreement until the Board declares otherwise.

(2) Where an undertaking is transferred from the Crown to an employer while an application is before the Tribunal for representation rights in respect of employees employed in the undertaking or for a declaration that an employee organization no longer represents employees employed in the undertaking, the application shall be transferred to the Board and the employer is the employer for the purpose of the application as if named as the employer in the application until the Board declares otherwise.

(3) Where an undertaking is transferred from the Crown to an employer and a bargaining agent has been granted representation rights under any Act and has given or is entitled to give written notice of desire to bargain to make or renew a collective agreement in respect of employees employed in the undertaking, the bargaining agent continues, until the Board declares otherwise, to be the bargaining agent in respect of the employees and is entitled to give to the employer written notice of desire to bargain to make or renew, with or without modifications, a collective agreement, as the case requires.

4. — (1) Where an undertaking was transferred from the Crown to an employer or from an employer to the Crown and an employee organization, trade union or council of trade unions was the bargaining agent in respect of employees employed in the undertaking immediately before the transfer and,

(a) a question arises as to what constitutes a unit of employees that is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes in respect of the undertaking; or

(b) any person, employee organization, trade union or council of trade unions claim that by virtue of section 2 or 3, a conflict exists as to the bargaining rights of the employee organization, trade union or council of trade unions,

any person, employee organization, trade union or council of trade unions concerned may apply to the Board, in the case of the transfer of the undertaking to an employer, or to the Tribunal, in the case of the transfer of the undertaking to the Crown, and the Board or the Tribunal, as the case requires,

(c) may determine the composition of the unit of employees referred to in clause a;

(d) may amend, to such extent as the Tribunal or the Board considers necessary,

(i) any bargaining unit in any certificate issued to any trade union or council of trade unions,

(ii) any bargaining unit defined in any collective agreement,

(iii) any unit of employees determined by the Tribunal to be appropriate for collective bargaining purposes in respect of the undertaking, or

(iv) any unit of employees that is designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as an appropriate bargaining unit for collective bargaining purposes in respect of the undertaking.

5. — (1) Notwithstanding section 2, where an undertaking is transferred from the Crown to an employer who intermingles the employees employed in the undertaking immediately before the transfer with employees employed in one or more other undertakings carried on by the employer or an undertaking is transferred from an employer to the Crown and employees employed in the undertaking immediately before the transfer are intermingled with employees employed in other undertakings of the Crown and an employee organization, trade union or council of trade unions that is the bargaining agent in respect of employees employed in any of the undertakings applies to the Board, in the case of the transfer of the undertaking to an employer, or to the Tribunal, in the case of the transfer of the undertaking to the Crown, the Board or the Tribunal, as the case requires,

(a) may declare that the employer or the Crown, as the case may be, is no longer bound by the collective agreement referred to in section 2or3;

(b) may determine whether the employees concerned constitute one or more appropriate bargaining units;

(c) may declare which employee organization, trade union or council of trade unions shall be the bargaining agent in respect of such bargaining unit; and

(d) may amend, to such extent as the Board or the Tribunal considers necessary,

(i) any certificate issued to any trade union or council of trade unions,

(ii) any bargaining unit defined in any collective agreement,

(iii) any unit of employees determined by the Tribunal to be appropriate for collective bargaining purposes in respect of any of the undertakings, or

(iv) any unit of employees that is designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as an appropriate bargaining unit for collective bargaining purposes in respect of any of the undertakings."

3. While the evidence is unsatisfactory in some respects, certain basic facts are not in dispute. Prior to January 1, 1980, the Ministry of the Environment ran two sewage treatment plants referred to as the Mitagami River Water Pollution Control Plant, and the Tisdale/Whitney Water Pollution Control Plant. The individuals employed in these facilities were Crown employees bound by a collective agreement between the Crown in Right of Ontario and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union ("OPSEU"). That agreement expired December 31, 1979 and, at the time of the hearing, was being renegotiated. Upon learning of the purported transfer to the City of Timmins, OPSEU sent the City a notice to bargain in respect of its members employed in the subject undertakings.

4. By by-law dated September 24, 1979 the City Council authorized the City officials to enter into a transfer agreement which was annexed to, and formed a part of the by-law. Clause 5 of agreement dealt with the transfer of employees:

"5. (1) The Municipality will offer to employ all those employees of the Crown listed in Schedule 'B' in the control, supervision, operation and maintenance of the Works or other sewage or water works of the Municipality.

(2) Subsection 1 does not prevent the Municipality from re-assigning any Crown employee employed pursuant to this section in the same way as other municipal employees are re-assigned to new positions from time to time.

(3) Each Crown employee who accepts an offer made pursuant to subsection 1 shall, subject to the provisions of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977, be employed under such terms and conditions of employment as employees of the Municipality may enjoy at the date of termination of the person's employment by the Crown provided that the terms and conditions of employment shall be not less favourable than those specified in Schedule 'B'."

Schedule "B" sets out an elaborate scheme designed to protect the employees' accrued benefits, and facilitate their integration into the wage and benefits program provided by their new employer. Essentially the agreement binds the City to continue the employees' established benefits, unless or until those benefits are exceeded by those provided to the City's existing employees. Schedule "B" was incorporated into a letter from the City to each former crown employee, offering continued employment in accordance with its terms. Those terms are as follows:

"1. A Crown employee accepting employment with the Municipality will, for the purposes of this schedule, become a municipal employee on the effective date of this agreement.

2. SALARIES AND WAGES

On transfers, the employee's existing rate and range of pay will be protected where they are higher than those assigned to an equivalent job classification at the Municipality. An employee whose rate and range of pay is protected by this provision will be formally integrated into the Municipality's pay structure when this rate of pay under that structure equals or exceeds his protected rate.

An employee whose rate and range of pay is protected by this provision and who is not at the maximum of his provincial salary range will be eligible to proceed to the maximum of his existing salary range, on the basis of merit, utilizing his provincial anniversary date.

An employee whose rate or range of pay is not protected by this provision will move to an equivalent salary rate, or the next higher rate of pay in the municipality's salary structure on the date of transfer and, if applicable, will maintain his existing anniversary date for the purposes of future merit increases, providing the resultant increase does not exceed 3%. If the increase exceeds 3% the date of transfer will become the employee's anniversary date.

3. VACATION LEAVE

An employee receiving vacation entitlement as a Crown employee at the time of transfer at a greater rate than that allowed under the Municipality's vacation entitlement schedules shall continue to receive entitlement annually at the same rate he received it in his last year as a Crown employee until the Municipality's schedules provide him with an equal or greater entitlement.

Annual vacation entitlement for the year in which the transfer takes place, less any vacation taken from January 1 in that year up to the date of transfer, will be transferred with each transferring employee. Any vacation days over and above such entitlement, existing on an employee's record, will be paid off at the time of transfer. An employee will not be eligible for any further vacation accrual during the calendar year of transfer unless the Municipality's schedules provide a higher rate of entitlement in which case the employee will accrue vacation entitlement for the balance of the calendar year at the rate by which the Municipality's rate exceeds the Crown's rate.

Should an employee resign from the Municipality prior to the end of the year he may have to reimburse the Municipality an appropriate number of days for the period by which his service falls short of the end of the year.

4. OVERTIME, ON CALL TIME, STATUTORY HOLIDAY TIME, SHIFT TIME

All outstanding balances for any of the above will be liquidated by cash payment by the Crown. Negative balances will be collected from any employee so transferring from the employee's final pay.

5. SENIORITY

The Municipality will utilize an employee's existing continuous service date with the province for the purpose of establishing seniority and entitlement to any benefits that flow there from.

6. GROUP INSURANCE & HOSPITAL COVERAGES

Any waiting period for employee hospitalization, medical plans and group life insurance will be waived in order to provide immediate coverage under plans provided by the Region. Where the insurance carrier refuses to waive a waiting period or the coverage is less than presently provided by the Crown, the Crown shall maintain any additional coverage for the employee if he desires until such time as the provisions of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977 has no further application.

7. PENSION PLAN

The employee's and employer's share of contributions to the Public Service Superannuation Fund will be transferred to OMERS in accordance with the reciprocal transfer agreement existing between the two funds.

The employee will receive a refund of contribution in the Public Service Superannuation Adjustment Fund as no similar provision exists under OMERS.

8. GENERAL

All other benefits and working conditions will be in accordance with the Municipality's arrangements and Collective Agreements except where these terms and conditions are less than those presently enjoyed by the employees. Where this is the case the Municipality will provide the additional benefits and terms for as long as The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977 applies."

5. As a result of the transfer and the acceptance of the above mentioned offers of employment, the City of Timmins became the new employer of the employees in the two sewage treatment plants. The City of Timmins is currently bound by a collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 210 ("CUPE") which expires on March31, 1981. Article 3.01 of that collective agreement provides:

"3.01 Bargaining Unit

The scope of this Agreement shall apply to all employees of the Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Public Cemeteries, Water Filtration Plants, Animal Control Officers and Maintenance Persons of the Department of Building and Maintenance, all of the City of Timmins, save and except the Works Superintendent, Foremen, persons above the rank of Foreman, and Office Staff Employees."

6. CUPE refers to this agreement as the "outside employee" agreement; although it will be observed that the recognition clause is not framed in this way, but refers to the employees in certain named departments. George Quirion, the respondent's Director of Public Works and Engineering, explained that "public works" and "engineering" were separate and distinct divisions. The applicant presently represents employees in the engineering division, who work in the water filtration plants. These water filtration plants are different from pollution control plants. The former are designed to provide potable water for domestic and industrial use, while the latter process and treat the water, after its use, before it is discharged back into the environment. There are some similarities in the two kinds of facilities; however, the plants themselves serve an entirely different purpose.

7. We are not satisfied on the evidence before us that the sewage plant operators would fall automatically into either the "water filtration plants" portion, or the "public works department" portion of the recognition clause. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the transfer of the sewage treatment plant operators results in an automatic accretion to the CUPE bargaining unit or raises the kind of conflict with the successor's pre-existing bargaining obligations contemplated by section 4(1) (b) of the Act.

8. There is no interchange or intermingling between the employees covered by the CUPE agreement and the employees in the sewage treatment plants. The respondent has continued to recognize OPSEU as the bargaining agent for these employees, has maintained the pre-existing terms and conditions of employment, and has indicated its desire to negotiate a new collective agreement with OPSEU. The employees, however, have all signed membership cards in CUPE Local 210.

9. CUPE submitted that the employees should be in its "outside bargaining unit", and that, in the circumstances, OPSEU no longer wished to represent them. OPSEU was prepared to consent to a board declaration terminating its bargaining rights, so long as it was clear that until such declaration is made, OPSEU continues to represent the employees, and continues to be entitled to any union dues payable by them.

10. CUPE urges the Board to give effect to the wishes of the employees, and to amend, if necessary, the bargaining unit defined in the "outside workers" agreement. This, contends CUPE, will result in a more rational, consolidated bargaining structure. CUPE argues that the preservation of the sewage plants as a separate unit results in an unnecessary fragmentation of the bargaining structure, and makes no "collective bargaining sense".

11. The City of Timmins relies on the absence of intermingling, the significantly different conditions of the contractual undertakings contained in the transfer agreements, to support its contention that the Board should preserve the status quo. The respondent requests a successor status declaration which maintains the sewage treatment plant as a separate bargaining unit. The respondent argues that if the employees wish to change their bargaining agent, they can make use of the certification process. There are already several CUPE bargaining units and the addition of one more would not unduly complicate the bargaining structure. Over the years through collective bargaining, the respondent has been able to achieve uniformity in conditions and benefits with these various CUPE locals, and the City seeks the same opportunity to "phase in" the new group of employees. A gradual integration was what was contemplated by the transfer agreement. The purpose of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, contends the respondent, is to preserve OPSEU's bargaining rights, not terminate those rights or transfer them to CUPE Local 210. There has been no change in the character of the undertaking so as to permit the termination of bargaining rights pursuant to section 4(2) of the Act; nor has there been any intermingling so as to permit a declaration [under section 5(1) (a) of the Act] that the respondent is no longer bound by a collective agreement, or [under section 5(1) (c) of the Act] that CUPE is the new bargaining agent. The respondent argues that section 4(1) should not be used to extinguish OPSEU's bargaining rights and, in effect, transfer them to CUPE. The respondent notes that the existing collective agreement contains no job classification specific to sewage treatment plant workers.

12. Section 4 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act is modelled on section 55(4) of The Labour Relations Act. The statutory language of the two sections is almost identical; save that section 55(4) refers to the preservation of a "like unit" while section 4(1) (a) is triggered by a question as to what constitutes "a unit of employees that is appropriate for collective bargaining in respect of the undertaking." In this respect section 4(1) (a) is similar to the intermingling provisions of both The Labour Relations Act, and The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act (i.e. sections 55(6); and section 5 respectively.

13. Section 55 has been part of The Labour Relations Act for many years, but it would appear that the issue raised in the present case has never arisen under that statute. Normally, of course, an incumbent union relies upon the successor rights section to preserve rights vis-a-vis a successor employer; or prevent an encroachment on those rights by a trade union which already has bargaining rights for the successor's employees. Here the incumbent union is content to abandon its bargaining rights, and the applicant is urging a restructuring of the bargaining unit so as to create bargaining rights which could not otherwise exist.

14. Under section 55(4) of The Labour Relations Act the Board has always tried to preserve the collective bargaining status quo — even though the resulting bargaining structure may be different from what the Board would have determined if the matter had arisen de novo on a certification application. In Loblaws Groceteria's Company Limited [1973] OLRB Rep. Jan. 73, for example, the Board preserved a union's bargaining rights in a single retail store in Windsor, and declined to redefine the bargaining unit to include all stores in the Municipal area, as it would have done, had the union applied for certification for that single store. The Board observed that,

"the primary purpose of section 55 is to preserve already existing bargaining rights in the event of the sale of a business, and not to give to a trade union bargaining rights it had not previously had".

Similar views were expressed in The City of Peterborough [1979] OLRB Rep. Feb. 133. In that case the City had acquired a bus service which had previously been run by an independent franchisee. There was no actual intermingling with other city employees, but there was an apparent conflict of bargaining rights, because CUPE already had an agreement with the city which purported to apply to all city employees. The Amalgamated Transit Union sought to preserve its rights for the transit workers who now worked for the City. The Board treated the matter under section 55(4), and in preserving the ATU's position in the transit operation remarked:

"13. The consistent point of departure in the decisions of the Board in applications under section 55 of the Act is recognition that the primary purpose of the section is the preservation of employees' bargaining rights upon the transfer of a business. The section protects employees of a transferred undertaking against automatically losing their union or seeing their bargaining rights transferred to an agent not of their choosing. Thus while the remedial scope of the section allows the Board to engage in an assessment of what is the appropriate bargaining unit the criteria to be applied are not identical to those which obtain in an application for certification of previously unrepresented employees. While the Board may have regard to all of the criteria that apply to that determination in a certification proceeding it must also, having regard to the purpose of section 55, seek to balance the interests of the employees of the transferred undertaking and their union with the interests of both the employer purchasing the undertaking as well as the interest of that employer's existing employees and their union. In the fashioning or amending of bargaining units under section 55 of the Act the Board must give effect to existing bargaining rights to the extent that those rights can be reasonably accommodated within the new employer's administrative structures. (Oshawa Wholesale Ltd., [19691 OLRB Rep. Feb. 504; The Corp. of the City of Kitchener, [1973] OLRB Rep. June 306; Yarntex Perth, Division of Yarntex Corporation Ltd., [1973] OLRB Rep. Feb. 137).

14. A particular concern in the determination of bargaining units under section 55 of The Labour Relations Act is that existing bargaining structures not lightly be interfered with. The Board recognizes the value of a bargaining unit that has developed through a succession of collective agreements. A bargaining structure with some substantial history to it often indicates a sound bargaining relationship. More often than not it has evolved through increased communication and has come to reflect a workable pattern of mutual expectations between union and employer. Since the promotion of sound collective bargaining relationships is what The Labour Relations Act is all about, the Board is understandably reluctant to dismantle a bargaining structure that has withstood the test of time."

Finally, in Essex County Board of Education, [1969] OLRB Rep. July 552, the Board contrasted its preservation of the status quo under section 47(a)(3) [now section 55(4)] with its more flexible approach to appropriateness under section 47(a)(5) [now 55(6)] where there is an intermingling or deemed intermingling of employees:

"4. The purpose of section 47a(5) is to avoid that confusion which arises where employees represented by one trade union as their bargaining agent are intermingled with other employees who may or may not be represented by a bargaining agent. Hence, intermingling, whether it is factual or deemed by operation of section 47a(10), is a condition precedent to bringing an application under section 47a(5). Once that condition is satisfied the Board then may exercise its powers under section 47a(5) and section 47a(7). Intermingling then becomes one of the factors which the Board considers in determining an appropriate bargaining unit under section 47a(5).

5. Different considerations are taken into account by the Board in determining the bargaining units in applications made under section 47a of The Labour Relations Act and in application for certification. (Oshawa Wholesale Case, supra.) Also the considerations applicable under sections 47a(2) and (3) differ from the considerations applicable under section 47a(5). Sections 47a(2) and (3) require a determination based on a "like bargaining unit" whether or not the same is appropriate. In applying sections 47a(2) and (3) the Board has stated:

'The [Board] must take into account, and in large measure be governed by, the scope of the bargaining unit already in existence.'

Oshawa Wholesale Case, supra. However, in applying section 47a(5) a determination is based on the appropriate bargaining unit.

6. We are further of the opinion that the considerations applicable to determining the appropriate bargaining units pursuant to section 47a(5) may differ from the considerations applicable in determining the 'unit of employees that is appropriate for collective bargaining' pursuant to section 6(1). For example, preservation of bargaining rights, a factor which may not exist under section 6(1) may be a factor in considerations pursuant to section 47a5(a)."

7. The established jurisprudence under section 55(4) overwhelmingly supports the preservation of the existing bargaining structure, unless there is an intermingling or deemed intermingling of the employees. It must be recognized however, that in cases such as City of Peterborough, supra this "presumption" in favour of the status quo, is based upon the transfer, in to, of a pre-existing (and presumptively be vial) bargaining unit — not a tiny fragment of a unit as in the present case. In addition, under section 4 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, as under section 55(6) of The Labour Relations Act, the Board is required to determine an "appropriate" bargaining unit. Bargaining history is only one factor to be considered in making this determination, and the use of the term "appropriate" suggests broader discretion than is expressed by the Board under section 55(4) of The Labour Relations Act.

8. There is no established jurisprudence under section 4 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act nor did the Board support a presumption in favour of the status quo, in the only case under that section to mention the issue. In Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital, [1978] OLRB Rep. May 445 at para. 18, the Board commented:

"18. In this case we have an undertaking being moved from the government sector to what might be called a quasi-public sector. The Crown has relinquished its role of employer and has given it to a public hospital board. Of even more significance is the fact that the collective bargaining structures existing in the two sectors are completely different. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the provisions of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, 1977, contain no reference to 'the like bargaining unit' as does section 55 of The Labour Relations Act. Where transfer between sectors occurs there can be no presumption, such as was made in Oshawa Wholesale Ltd., supra, that existing bargaining units will continue in their same form. In the Board's view, the presumption is the opposite — that existing bargaining units must be adapted to fit the bargaining structure of the sector that they have just entered. To take the other approach would be to create an anomalous and unwieldy bargaining structure that would defy all common sense."

The Board noted that The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act prescribes a single, comprehensive, province-wide unit, embracing all public servants. The statutory framework, bargaining environment, and dispute settlement mechanisms are quite different from those which exist in the private sector. It cannot be assumed that a fragment of this province-wide bargaining unit, when transferred to the private sector, will necessarily reflect a single community of interest, or be entirely appropriate in its new context. The previous bargaining history is much less significant than it is under The Labour Relations Act.

17. The actual decision in Owen Sound General & Marine Hospital was based upon the existence of intermingling, and the discretion given to the Board under section 5 of the Act. This was also the basis of the Board's decision in Regional Municipality of Halton, [1978] OLRB Rep. Aug. 750 which was relied upon by the applicant. In that case two sewage treatment plants had been transferred from the Crown to Halton and employees were intermingled with those of the successor. The trade union representing the successor's other employees affirmatively demonstrated that the newly transferred employees would fall within the scope of its existing collective agreement with the successor, and the parties were in agreement that there should be a single bargaining unit, described as in that agreement. There was no dispute concerning the bargaining structure. Having regard to the small number of employees who were transferred, the Board declined to hold a representation vote, and simply declared that all of the employees were bound by that agreement. In the present case there is no intermingling, and the respondent's new employees would not automatically fall within the scope of the applicant's existing agreement. The circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable from those in Owen Sound General & Marine Hospital or Regional Municipality of Halton. Neither provides a firm guideline for the disposition of the present case.

18. We are satisfied that the use of the term "appropriate" in section 4(1)(a) suggests a broad discretion to make an objective determination of the appropriate bargaining structure. We also adopt the view of the Board in Owen Sound General & Marine Hospital that there is no presumption in favour of maintaining the status quo, as there would be under section 55(4) of The Labour Relations Act. Both of these conclusions support CUPE's contention. There are however, equally weighty counterveiling considerations which militate against acceptance of the applicant's position.

19. The purpose of the successor rights legislation is to preserve, rather than extend, extinguish or transfer bargaining rights. We do not think it was intended that section 4(1)(a) could be used for the purpose suggested by the applicant. It will be observed that, in contrast to sections 4(2) and 5 of the Act, section 4(1) contains no language respecting the termination of bargaining rights or a declaration as to which of two unions is the bargaining agent for the transferred employees. Had the legislature intended the Board to exercise such powers, it could have easily so specified in language similar to that used in section 5. The failure to do so suggests that the legislature envisaged a more limited role for the Board in applications under section 4. It is also unusual, in our view, to suggest that the "unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining in respect of the undertaking" should be defined so as to encompass a large body of employees, represented by another bargaining agent, in another, and wholly separate, bargaining unit — especially where, as here, there is no intermingling and the result would be to extinguish the bargaining rights of the incumbent union. The municipal employees are bound by their own collective agreement which was negotiated prior to the transfer, and does not contemplate an accretion of the kind now proposed by the applicant. The terms and conditions of the sewage plant operators are significantly different from those of the municipal employees, and to include them in the CUPE agreement could effectively undermine the guarantees which the Crown sought on their behalf to preserve. Finally, we are not satisfied that the preservation of the collective bargaining status quo results in a wholly irrational or entirely unworkable bargaining structure. The respondent's present bargaining structure is not a model of rationality and symmetry. It is already highly fragmented, yet the parties have been able to achieve uniformity of conditions through the process of collective bargaining. There is no reason why a similar accommodation cannot be reached vis-a-vis the transferred employees; and if those employees wish to change bargaining agents they are permitted to do so pursuant to the certification provisions of the Act, when such application is timely.

20. For the foregoing reasons, the board declares that:

(a) the respondent, the Corporation of the City of Timmins, is a successor employer pursuant to the provisions of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act S.O. 1977c. 30; and

(b) the intervener, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, continues to represent the employees of the sewage treatment plants herein mentioned, and is entitled to bargain collectively on their behalf.