Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1981] OLRB Rep. August 1159
0061-81-U Nicolas Finney, Complainant, v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), Respondent, v. RCA Limited, Intervener
BEFORE: M. G. Picher, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and D. B. Archer.
APPEARANCES: Nicolas Finney for the complainant; Art Jenkyn and Dick Barry for the respondent; Robert A. Macpherson, Morris Monteith and Michael McGullough for the intervener.
DECISION OF M. G. PICHER, VICE-CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBER D. B. ARCHER; August 12, 1981
1This is a complaint under section 79 of the Act whereby an employee alleges that the respondent (hereinafter "the U.E.") has conducted a ratification vote in a manner contrary to section 63(4) of the Act. The section provides as follows:
63.-(4) A strike vote or a vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement taken by a trade union shall be by ballots cast in such a manner that a person expressing his choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed.
2The facts are not substantially in dispute. On November 16, 1979 the U.E. was granted interim certification as bargaining agent of the office, clerical and technical employees of RCA Limited at its plant in Midland. A number of challenges were raised respecting the composition of the bargaining unit, and following examinations a final certificate issued on November 5, 1980.
3Negotiations for the first collective agreement were long. The first meeting between the union and the employer took place on February 28, 1980. After some 20 bargaining meetings, on January 24, 1981 the union and the company signed a memorandum of agreement. While the memorandum did not expressly require ratification it provided in part:
The undersigned representatives of the Company and the Union agree to recommend the above settlement to their principals for acceptance.
4On Saturday, January 25, 1981 the U.E. held a meeting of the employees in the bargaining unit at the Athenian Hall in Midland. The union's negotiators, led by U.E. president Dick Barry, then gave a verbal account of the tentative settlement; they had no written copy of the memorandum to distribute, the agreement having been concluded at 4:30 a.m. that morning. It was then resolved to convene a further meeting to consider the proposed settlement at the same location on February 1, 1981. The evidence establishes that between January 25 and February 1, 1981 copies of the full proposed collective agreement were circulated to all employees in the bargaining unit. The meeting of February 1, 1981 was convened with some 90 employees present. At that meeting, a vote was conducted. While it is not the vote impugned in this complaint, the union maintains that it is relevant to the case before the Board.
5The evidence establishes that the complainant, Mr. Finney, was the most outspoken participant in the meeting. As an employee in the bargaining unit, Mr. Finney had led a unsuccessful attempt to stop the union's certification and subsequently sought, again without success, to have the department in which he works excluded from the bargaining unit. At the meeting Mr. Finney expressed strong dissatisfaction with the proposed settlement and urged that it not be adopted as a collective agreement. After considerable discussions a vote was taken on whether to go back to the company to bargain for an improved settlement.
6The evidence relating to the voting procedure