United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers International Union v. Plastics CMP Limited, 1981 CanLII 1048

Ontario Labour Relations Board

[1982] OLRB Rep. May 726

1043-81-U;, 1044-81-U; 1718-81-R; 1719-81-R United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers International Union, Complainant/Applicant, v. Plastics CMP Limited, Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd., 440172 Ontario Limited, and 374686 Ontario Ltd., Respondents; United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers International Union, Applicant, v. Plastics CMP Limited, and 374686 Ontario Ltd., Respondents

BEFORE: R. D. Howe, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members C. G. Bourne and B. L. Armstrong.

APPEARANCES: James Hayes and Frank MacLean for the applicant, Werner E. Kurz for the respondent Plastics CMP Limited, Barry J. Lawrence for the respondent Barry J. Lawrence Management Limited, Gerrit Craibeek for the respondent 440172 Ontario Limited and Herman Elgetti for the respondent 374686 Ontario Limited.

DECISION OF R. D. HOWE, VICE CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBER B. L. ARMSTRONG; May 27, 1981

11. File No. 1043-81-U is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act in which the complainant trade union (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") complains that it and "all members of the bargaining unit" have been dealt with contrary to the provisions of sections 15, 64, 66, 70 and 79 of the Act by Plastics CMP Limited ("CMP"), Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd. ("Lawrence"), 440172 Ontario Limited, which carries on business as Plastic Painters of Canada ("Plastic"), and 374686 Ontario Limited, which carries on business as Kawartha Moulding Consultants and Labour Supply Co. ("Kawartha"). File No. 1044-81-U is an application by the Union for consent to institute a prosecution of the respondents for those alleged breaches of the Act. File No. 1718-81-R is a section 63 application in which the Union contends that Kawartha is the successor of CMP by virtue of a sale of a business. File 1719-81-R is an application under section 1(4) in which the Union alleges that associated or related activities or businesses are or were carried on CMP and Kawartha.

3. These matters were heard concurrently on the direction of the Board in view of the interrelatedness of a number of their factual and legal issues. The evidence adduced before the Board has been applied to each of the files in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

4. Although the respondent Lawrence was duly notified at these proceedings, no one appeared on behalf of that respondent during the four days (January 29, February 12, March 16, and March 17, 1982) on which the Board heard evidence with respect to these applications, nor during the first day of argument (March 18, 1982). Although Barry J. Lawrence appeared before the Board on the final day of argument (April 14, 1982) and was afforded an opportunity to make submissions to the Board on behalf of the respondent Lawrence with respect to File Nos. 1043-81-U and 1044-81-U, he elected not to do so.

5. At the commencement of his argument on behalf of the Union, counsel stated that he was of the view that there was not sufficient evidence before the Board to support the Section 1(4) application and that, accordingly, his client would be "content to withdraw that matter". Since the Union's request for leave to withdraw its section 1(4) application was not opposed by either of the respondents thereto, that application is hereby withdrawn at the request of the applicant and with the consent of the Board.

6. CMP operates a high volume plating shop specializing in metal plating of plastic automotive components. The work performed at the plant includes moulding "pelletized" plastic into plastic parts, painting some of the parts with "resist" paint, "racking" the parts by mounting them on a rack which then moves through various chemical baths in a pre-plating process followed by an electroplating process, "unracking" the parts, "finishing" painting, inspecting the parts for quality control purposes, packaging and shipping. The plant was constructed and wired in the latter part of 1979 and early 1980. All of the extensive electrical work at the site was performed by Herman Elgeti, carrying on business as Elgeti Electric, a sole proprietorship. Mr. Elgeti, who is the President of Kawartha, also served as a CM P consultant who ordered equipment for installation at the plant.

7. Luba Veselinovic was the original incorporator of CMP in November of 1978 and has been a consultant to CMP since its inception. He reports directly to Gutav Blunk, the owner of CMP, and has responsibility for the financial and overall management of the company. Mr. Veselinovic decided to "contract" to Lawrence the provision, training and supervision of the unskilled workers needed to operate the plant, because Lawrence was experienced in that type of personnel management. Accordingly, CMP and Lawrence entered into a "Management-Consulting Agreement" in November of 1979 by which Lawrence agreed to manage and carry out the production line needs of CMP "including the provision, training and supervision of a sufficient number of the Consultant's personnel for the purpose of completing such work .... ". Pursuant to that agreement, Lawrence employees did "racking", "unracking" and painting of parts for CMP, as well as general maintenance work at the plant.

8. In the fall of 1979, the Union began to organize the employees who were working at the CMP plant. Eric Batten, a district representative for the Union, was provided with names of employees by his son-in-law, who worked at the plant while it was being built and subsequently worked in the plant as an employee of Lawrence. When Mr. Batten learned that an organization known as the "Lawment Trade Union" ("Lawment") had applied for certification as bargaining agent for the employees of Lawrence, he instructed counsel to intervene in those proceedings on behalf of the Union. In an unreported decision dated October 31, 1979, the Board, differently constituted, dismissed that application (File No. 1227-79-R) because it was not satisfied on the evidence before it that Lawment was a trade union within the meaning of the Act. The Board also found in that case that an "agreement" dated June 15, 1979 between Lawment and Lawrence could not "be construed as an agreement between an employer and a trade union". When Mr. Batten was subsequently informed by some of the Union members in the employ of Lawrence that Lawrence was deducting ''union dues" from their pay cheques for remittance to Lawment, Mr. Batten caused a complaint to be filed with the l3oard in December of 1979 under what is now section 89 of the Act in respect of those deductions (Board File No. 1674-79-U). On January 4, 1980, the Union and Lawrence entered a written settlement of that complaint by which Lawrence, without admission of liability, agreed to cease and desist from deducting monies from its employees on behalf of Lawment and to reimburse any employees from whom it had deducted such monies. Lawrence further agreed that it would not engage in support of Lawment or any other labour organization. Accordingly, the complaint was withdrawn at the request of the applicant and with leave of the Board.

9. Thereafter, an organization known as "The Association of Labourers, Painters, Platers and Plastic Workers" applied to the Board for certification as bargaining agent for the employees of Lawrence (File No 1893-79-R). Once again, Mr. Batten instructed counsel to intervene. After foreman James Herr, who was spokesman for the Association (and who was also one of the two persons who appeared before the Board on behalf of Lawment in support of its certification application), had been extensively cross-examined by counsel for the Union, the Association sought leave of the Board to withdraw its application for certification. However, in view of the stage which the proceedings had reached, the Board, differently constituted, dismissed that application in an unreported decision dated February 28, 1980.

10. Throughout that period, the Union's organizational activities continued until it finally came to be in a position to apply for certification on April 16, 1980. (Both Lawrence and CM P were named as respondents in that application.) By decision dated May 20, 1980 in File No. 0099-80-R, another panel of the Board certified the Union as bargaining agent for "all employees of Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd. employed at Plastics CMP Limited in the Municipality f Peterborough, Ontario, save and except foreman [sic] and persons above the rank of foreman, sales and office staff, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period."

11. Gerrit Craybeek, who is the current President of Plastics, has extensive experience in the development, manufacturing, marketing, technical and service aspects of painting and coating of automotive parts. He came to Canada from the United States in 1976 and subsequently established, with the assistance of his wife Susan, a number of corporations to protect various assets from seizure as a result of a lawsuit commenced against him by a former employer and as a result of his (Mr. Craybeek's) subsequent state of bankruptcy. He was employed at Lawrence as a consultant from November 11, 1979 to March 20, 1980 and was given the responsibility of solving "technical, administrative and production quality and flow problems" at the CMP plant. Although Mr. Craybeek recommended some "management ­personnel alignment changes", he had no direct personnel supervision responsibilities during that period. During March of 1980 CM P's operations were shut down to implement some of the technical changes which Mr. Craybeek had recommended as a result of his consulting work. Included in Mr. Craybeek's recommendations to CMP (through Lawrence) was the suggestion that a new company be established to which CMP could "subcontract" the painting of the plated parts which it produced. It was Mr. Craybeek's evidence that he "suggested that the painting be subcontracted to a different company (i.e., a company other than Lawrence) in order to arrive at two very positive results: (1) a definition of responsibilities, personnel cost, etc.; and (2) by forming a separate corporation, the corporation would be free to investigate other marketing opportunities that existed in finishing". Mr. Craybeek also hoped to establish a sales position for himself with the new company. Pursuant to that suggestion, Barry J. Lawrence caused 440172 Ontario Limited (which, as noted above, is being referred to in this decision as "Plastic") to be incorporated. Mr. Lawrence also arranged for Plastice to rent 8,000 square feet of plant space and various paint equipment from CMP. At the same time, CMP and Plastic also entered into an agreement (dated April 9, 1980) whereby the latter would take over the painting of parts which had previously been performed for CMP by employees of Lawrence. The signatory of that agreement on behalf of Plastic was BarryJ. Lawrence who, at that time, was a principal of both Lawrence and Plastic. After that documentation had been completed, Mr. Lawrence immediately transferred ownership of Plastic from himself to one R.

G. McKenzie.

12. Mr. Veselinovic, whom the Board found to be an evasive witness with a "convenient" memory, did not provide any legitimate justification for CM P's decision to shift the painting work from Lawrence to Plastic. He made no reference whatever to any decision on the part of the company to "define responsibilities, personnel costs, etc." as suggested by Mr. Craybeek. Indeed, his evidence in this regard was: "I was dealing with one man, [Barry J.] Lawrence himself.... For me, it wasn't any difference if it was Barry J. Lawrence Limited or Plastic Painters of Canada. So long as I got my parts painted, I really didn't care if the name of the company changed or not."

13. Having regard to all of the circumstances, including Lawrence's support of Lawment, the managerial involvement in the Association of Labourers, Painters, Platers and Plastic Workers, the manner in which the shift of the painting work from Lawrence to Plastic coincided with the culmination of the Union's organizational activities and application for certification in respect of Lawrence, and the failure of Barry J. Lawrence to testify in three proceedings, the Board infers that one of the purposes, if not the only purpose, of that arrangement was to ensure that the Union would not gain bargaining rights for the painters.

14. When Mr. Batten became aware during the late spring or early summer of 1980 that some of the painters at the CMP plant were uncertain whether they were employees of Lawrence or Plastic, as they would receive a paycheque from one company one time and from the other company another time, he raised the matter with Barry J. Lawrence who agreed to transfer all hourly employees of Plastic to the Lawrence payroll. That agreement, which was arrived at prior to signing a collective agreement, is reflected in the following letter to Mr. Batten (on Lawrence letterhead) dated August 19, 1980:

"This is to inform you that I have fulfilled my part of our agreement to employee [sic] all hourly employees of Plastic Painters of Canada.

All persons were transferred to the Lawrence Management Ltd. payroll on Tuesday, July 1, 1980.

Should you require any further information, please contact the writer.

Yours truly,

(signed) Barry J. Lawrence"

Thus, through that letter, Mr. Batten was led to believe that the Union had bargaining rights for all of the painters working at the CMP site. In spite of that assurance, it appears from the evidence that unbeknownst to Mr. Batten, employees of Plastic continued to perform painting work at CMP plant alongside employees of Lawrence until October of 1980. Mr. Craybeek's explanation for this was that "some employees of [Lawrence] were used as a labour force by [Plastic] to handle any excess workload the employees of [Plastic] could not themselves do."

15. From June to September of 1980, Mr. Lawrence handled the entire administration of Plastic under the direction of Mr. McKenzie. Mr. Craybeek was the production manager and salesman for Plastic during that period. In the fall of that year Mr. Craybeek assumed responsibility for the administration of that company in addition to his other duties. It was also decided at that time that Mr. Lawrence should supply the major portion of Plastic's employees through his labour supply company (Lawrence). Thus, it was not until October of 1980 that Mr. Lawrence's undertaking to 'transfer" to Lawrence the hourly employees of Plastic was fulfilled by terminating the painters employed by Plastic and "putting them into" Lawrence.

16. The negotiations which followed the Union's certification as bargaining agent for the employees of Lawrence culminated in a collective agreement dated June 30, 1980 between the Union and that company, which agreement was to be in force from July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1983. Mr. Batten testified that after the collective agreement came into effect, "labour relations with Lawrence were fairly normal". The Union had grievance meetings with Mr. Lawrence and also had "a couple of arbitrations". Mr. Craybeek sat in on "one or two" of the grievance meetings. In late November of 1980, Mr. Craybeek requested the Union to revise its collective agreement with Lawrence to eliminate overtime pay of time and one half on Saturdays and double time on Sundays so as to allow management a "more effective scheduling mechanism". It was Mr. Craybeek's evidence that not only the company but also the employees wanted that change to be made. That request was denied by the Union.

17. In the spring of 1981, Mr. Craybeek, who was finding it increasingly difficult to work with Mr. Lawrence, decided to leave the employ of Plastic. However, since it was apparent that Plastic could not function without Mr. Craybeek, Mr. McKenzie agreed to sell the company, which had debts in excess of $50,000, to Mr. Craybeek for one dollar on the understanding that Mr. Craybeek would assume all existing liabilities, contracts and other obligations of the company. As a result of that sale which took place on June 19, 1981, Mr. Craybeek became the sole owner o~' Plastic.

18. Near the end of June in 1981, Mr. Craybeek terminated the arrangement under which Lawrence had supplied employees (painters) to Plastic. As a result, those employees were terminated by Lawrence and were immediately hired by Plastic with a slight increase in pay. Thus, the same individuals continued to perform the painting work at the CMP plant but under the employ of a different employer. When additional personnel were required by Plastic from time to time, they were generally provided by Ebb Management ("Ebb"), a company that had been established by Susan Craybeek with the assistance of her husband, to provide the services of employees subsidized by various (Federal and Provincial) government programs. Ebb also supplied personnel to a number of other Craybeek companies. Before determining whether the actions of Lawrence, Plastic and CMP in June of 1981 contravened the Act, the Board will examine and consider a number of contemporaneous events involving the respondents CMP, Lawrence and Kawartha.

19. At a point in time (in late 1980 or early 1981) which is unclear from the evidence, CM P terminated its labour supply contract with Lawrence. Mr. Veselinovic's evidence concerning the motivation for that decision was rather vague. It was his evidence that it has consistently been his view since the inception of CM P that unskilled work in the plant should be carried on by an "outside employer" who would be in a position to train such employees. Nevertheless, he testified that he decided that CMP should terminate the contract with Lawrence and hire its own employees to "rack" and "unrack" parts because "management was complaining about the [Lawrence] rackers and unrackers... doing certain things" and that Barry J. Lawrence was not in a position to train them. Mr. Veselinovic was unable to recall who recommended that change to him.

20. When Mr. Batten became aware that Lawrence's contract with CMP had been terminated and that Barry J. Lawrence was of the view that the collective agreement between the Union and Lawrence was "null and void", Mr. Batten took steps to restore the Union s bargaining rights by causing an application for certification to be filed with the board in late February of 1981 in respect to the production employees of CM P. By decision dated March 24, 1981, in File No. 2618-80-R, the Board, differently constituted, certified the Union as bargaining agent for "all employees of the respondent [CMP] in Peterborough, Ontario, save and except foremen, those above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff, licensed electricians, and those covered by an existing collective agreement between [Lawrence] and [the Union]". In its unreported decision in that matter, the Board wrote:

"4. The Board is satisfied on the basis of all the evidence before it that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit at the time the application was made, were members of the applicant on March 11, 1981, the terminal date fixed for this application and the date which the Board determines, under section 92(2)(j) of The Labour Relations Act, to be the time for the purpose of ascertaining membership under section 7(1) of the said Act.

5. There was filed with the Board prior to the terminal date a statement of desire opposing the applicant's certification bearing five signatures, one of which was for a person who was also claimed as a member of the applicant. If the Board were to accept this as evidence of the voluntary wishes of that employee, it would not affect the applicant's right to be certified.

6. The group of objectors sought leave to file additional written evidence of support of employees wishing to oppose the applicant's certification. No representations were made which were persuasive of the Board exercising its discretion to extend the terminal date herein for the purpose of receiving this additional evidence and accordingly, the Board refused to receive such evidence."

7. Early in April of 1981, Mr. Batten gave CMP written notice of the Union's desire to bargain with a view to making a collective agreement, pursuant to section 14 of the Act. He also provided management with a copy of the Union's proposed collective agreement and advised the company that Debra Mullen and William Grant, who were employees of CMP, would be joining with him to form the Union's bargaining committee. By letter dated April 14, 1981, Prabodh Bhakta, Vice-President of CMP, acknowledged receipt of the Union's notice to bargain and stated:

"We are at this time studying your proposal in depth and will advise place and date for negotiations in the very near future."

A month and a half later, Mr. Bhakta sent a second letter to Mr. Batten, with which he enclosed a copy of the following letter dated June 1, 1981, to the Board, and requested Mr. Batten's "cooperation with the Department of Labour in this matter until this situation is settled to everyone's satisfaction":

"Re File Number 2618 -80-R

On March 30th, 1981, we received your certification of the United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union as the bargaining agent for our employees. On April 8th, 1981, we received the proposed contract for the collective agreement from the Union. But, we the Company, find ourselves in a strange situation, our employees do not want us to negotiate and sign any contract with the Union. [sic]

We would like to request your help in this matter. As a suggestion, if you could come to our plant, acting in a non-partisan role and take a secret ballot. [sic] We would then go ahead and do as the majority rules. But at this time the Company is caught in the middle.

Your response to this request at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated."

Mr. Batten told the Board that when he received that letter, he "felt that they [the management of CMP] weren't serious" about bargaining and that "the only sensible step at that time was to apply for conciliation". A conciliation officer was appointed in due course and arranged for a meeting with the parties on July 10, 1981. Despite the fact that the Board, differently constituted, had dismissed on May 29, 1981 the request for reconsideration of the Board's decision (dated March 24, 1981 in File No. 21618-80-R) to certify the Union as bargaining agent for the employees of CMP, at the conciliation meeting Mr. Bhakta advised the conciliation officer and the Union's bargaining committee that CMP would not bargain until after a secret ballot vote had been held "to see if the Union represents the people" employed at CMP. Both Mr. Batten and the conciliation officer informed Mr. Bhakta to no avail that CMP was under a legal obligation to bargain in good faith with the Union and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement. A further meeting was held on July 21st but it lasted only five minutes because CMP continued its illegal refusal to bargain.

22. After that meeting, Mr. Batten instructed counsel to commence unfair labour practice proceedings. Accordingly, the section 89 complaint in File No. 1043-81-U and the related application for consent to prosecute (in File No. 1044-81-U) were filed with the Board on August 6, 1981 and were scheduled for hearing on August 31, 1981.

23. On August 31, 1981 the parties agreed to a sine die adjournment of the proceedings on the following terms:

"(a) The respondent Plastics CMP Limited agrees to meet with the complainant forthwith and to bargain in good faith as required by section 14 of the Labour Relations Act and as required by a Ministry of Labour Conciliation Officer or Mediator as the case may be.

(b) The complainant agrees to deliver to the respondent a letter setting out required information concerning the various incorporated and unincorporated business entities at the Peterborough site including their labour relations arrangements and policies.

(c) The respondents agree to respond forthwith in good faith and detail to bona fide enquiries made by the complainant as per paragraph (b) above.

(d) The complainant agrees that these matters will not be brought on for hearing before the OLRB unless the respondents have ten days notice before the day of hearing."

24. CMP gave each of the bargaining unit employees a wage increase in early July of 1981. Although Mr. Kurz testified that management made the decision "in November or December" of 1980 that a wage increase would be given in July of 1981 at the "beginning of the following model year", he conceded that the employees were not informed of the increase until July of 1981, although they were told "before Christmas in 1980 that there would be no consideration of any increase until July, that is, if there was going to be any increase it would be in June or July." He also testified that employees were told that management "would consider [a wage increase] in July, depending on how good the year looked." CMP did not seek the Union's consent to implement that wage increase.

25. By increasing the wages of the bargaining unit employees without the consent of the Union, CMP breached section 79(1) of the Act which provides:

"79.-(l) Where notice has been given under section 14 or section 53 and no collective agreement is in operation, no employer shall, except with the consent of the trade union, alter the rates of wages or any other term or condition of employment or any rights, privilege or duty, of the employer, the trade union or the employees, and no trade union shall, except with the consent of the employer, alter any term or condition of employment or any right, privilege or duty of the employer, the trade union or the employees,

(a) until the Minister has appointed a conciliation officer or a mediator under this Act, and

(i) seven days have elapsed after the Minister has released to the parties the report of a conciliation board or mediator, or

(ii) fourteen days have elapsed after the Minister has released to the parties a notice that he does not consider it advisable to appoint a conciliation board,

as the case may be; or

(b) until the right of the trade union to represent the employees has been terminated,

whichever occurs first."

If CMP's decision to increase wages in June or July had been communicated to employees prior to the onset of the "freeze", then the "business as before" approach which the Board applies in cases involving section 79 would have obligated the employer to implement that increase. (See, for example, Ottawa General Hospital, [1981] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1461; Carleton University, [1978] OLRB Rep. Feb. 184; Hostess Food Products Ltd., [1975] OLRB Rep. Mar. 210; and Scarborough Centenary Hospital, [1969] OLRB Rep. Jan. 1049.) However, in the present case, employees had merely been told that "no consideration" would be given to a wage increase until June or July. Thus, no decision to increase wages was made by management or communicated to employees prior to the onset of the freeze; all that the employees had been told is that management would consider giving an increase at that time.

26. Pursuant to a two year "Labour and Consulting Agreement" dated November 1, 1980, Kawartha managed and supplied labour for CM P's "moulding department", and also supplied training and assistance to CMP's "maintenance department". Kawartha generally had a maximum of eight (non-managerial) employees working at the CMP plant under that contract. Two of those employees performed maintenance work on a regular basis. The other six operated the moulding machine which heated and moulded "pelletized" plastic into plastic parts; two of them operated that machine on each of the three daily eight hour shifts. It appears that the number of employees supplied by Kawartha had been reduced to five or six by the early summer of 1981 due to the elimination of one of the three shifts.

27. Weiner Kurz, the present General Manager of CMP, told the Board that in July of 1981, he and Mr. Veselinovic "decided to allow Kawartha to take an expanded role at the site". On July 17, 1981, CMP and Kawartha entered into a "Tentative Agreement for Labour Supply and Consultant Services" whereby Kawartha agreed to supply "labour and consulting services" to CMP "for an amount of $6.60 per person/per hour", which amount was to be subject to reassessment after six months. Mr. Elgeti testified that the discussions which led to the signing of that contract began in the second week of July. Mr. Elgeti conceded that he was aware that CMP was "bargaining" with the Union at that time, but maintained that he did not discuss the bargaining with Messrs. Veselinovic or Kurz because "it had no relationship to [him]". To effectuate that "tentative agreement", CMP "laid off 15 to 18" of its employees (i.e., all of its rackers and unrackers) on Friday, July 31, 1981. Most of the employees who were laid off by CMP sought employment with Kawartha and were hired by that company. Thus, they commenced work on the following Monday at the CMP plant as rackers and unrackers earning the same wages as they had earned as employees of CMP. CMP also "laid off' its Production Manager, Robert Kennedy, whose duties had included supervision of the rackers and unrackers, in addition to supervision of the plate line. Mr. Kennedy was also immediately hired by Kawartha to supervise its newly-hired rackers and unrackers. Thus, the implementation of that "Tentative Agreement" resulted in the same work (racking and unracking) being performed in the same place (the CMP plant) by substantially the same persons (the rackers and unrackers formally employed by CMP) under the direction supervision of the same individual (Mr. Kennedy). It also resulted in only about four bargaining unit employees remaining in the employ of CMP.

28. Mr. Kurz's explanation for the decision to contract out to Kawartha almost alPof the bargaining unit work at the end of July was that CMP had added a third shift and had "problems... in the plating end of it" which caused management to be of the view that they should not have to "worry about the racking of material". It was his evidence that Mr. Elgeti "was in a better position time wise to look after these people or that function". He also stated that CMP was "experiencing some quality problems with the racking" and that the contracting out "was done for a long term economic benefit". When asked why CMP had not merely extended Mr. Elgeti's "consulting functions" to include supervision of those employees instead of laying off them and their supervisor on the understanding that they would be employed by Kawartha at the CMP plant under the supervision of Mr. Elgeti, Mr. Kurz stated, "Because that's the method we deemed best for us." Under further cross-examination concerning that matter, he stated that he "really [couldn't] say" why he and Mr. Veselinovic decided that contracting out was "the best way to go". He also stated that he did not think that the Union had any bearing on the decision since it "never came up in the discussion", although he admitted that he did not know what considerations were taken into account by Mr. Veselinovic who was the one who "ultimately made the decision".

29. Mr. Veselinovic's evidence concerning that decision was even less enlightening. He was unable to recall when the decision was made; when asked if it was made in the summer of 1981 he stated, "I don't know." He told the Board that he was consulted on that matter and agreed that contracting out "was the correct way to go". However, he testified that the final decision was made by Mr. Kurz. (That evidence is, of course, in direct contradiction with the evidence of Mr. Kurz, who testified in the absence of Mr. Veselinovic.) Mr. Veselinovic also told the Board that the possibility of entering into a contract with Kawartha for the supply of rackers and unrackers was discussed with Mr. Elgeti "a couple or three times before July of 1981" and that one such discussion occurred in April. That evidence is in direct contradiction with the evidence of Mr. Elgeti (who testified in the absence of Mr. Veselinovic) that there were no such discussions until the second week of July. Having regard to his evasiveness, forgetfulness and general demeanour as a witness, the Board is unable to give credence to Mr. Veselinovic's testimony that the work in question as contracted out to Kawartha because "the rejects rate was too high", and that the contracting out to Kawartha "had nothing to do with collective bargaining".

30. The hollowness of the business justifications put forward by the management of CMP in support of its decision to contract out the work in question to Kawartha is quite evident from the testimony of Mr. Kurz. Moreover, Mr. Elgeti conceded in cross-examination that Mr. Kennedy was essential to that "labour supply" agreement; since Mr. Elgeti was "the technical man" with "electrical expertise", supervision of those employees continued to be the responsibility of Mr. Kennedy as it had been before the lay-off. Although Mr. Elgeti was subsequently able to use his technical expertise to "streamline the process" with a resulting reduction in manpower needs, it is not evident why such streamlining could not have been accomplished by Mr. Elgeti in his capacity as a consultant to CMP, without any necessity for "transferring" the workforce from the employment of CMP to the employment of Kawartha.

31. Mr. Elgeti was aware that the Union was the certified bargaining agent of the CMP employees who were laid off by that company on July 31, 1981. That one of the purposes, if not the only purpose, of the "labour supply" arrangements between CMP and Kawartha was to defeat the Union's bargaining rights is evident from a "private" discussion which Mr. Elgeti had with Ms. Mullen, one of the laid off CMP employees whom he knew to be an active supporter of the Union, prior to agreeing to employ her. Mr. Elgeti testified:

"I explained to her that I had worked for eighteen years, that I had my own company, that I knew my responsibilities between the employees and myself, and that I would like to have a chance to run it by myself first because I knew she was a representative of the Union. I also told her that I would make up an agreement between the employees and myself that if they were not satisfied with it, they could come by themselves or in a group to discuss it. If they were not satisfied and a majority of the people wanted to call the Union in to help them, that was all right to do, but I asked her to wait first and see what I could come up with to give me a chance to run it by myself. I never threatened her. I also asked her if she wanted to act as a representative between me and the employees on her shift and also asked her if she wanted to be the safety representative on her shift."

Despite that evidence, Mr. Elgeti subsequently told the Board, "It was not my intention to take the people away from the Union. I am not fighting the Union. We are fighting for survival, that's all." He also conceded in cross-examination that 'they" had recommended that he not hire Ms. Mullen because she was a Union supporter, but that he had decided to give her a chance. Mr. Elgeti's evidence concerning who "they" were was far from satisfactory. Under vigorous cross-examination he ultimately conceded that it "could have been" a CMP supervisor. Later, in response to a question by Board Member Armstrong, Mr. Elgeti told the Board that Mi. Kennedy was one of the persons who was present during that discussion, along with "two or three other people". However, at a subsequent continuation of the hearing, he attempted to revise his earlier testimony by indicating that he had "remembered" that he received the advice in question during a conversation with one of his sons, who works with him in the moulding area and rides to and from work with him.

32. Having regard to all of the circumstances, the Board finds that one of the purposes, if not the only purpose, of the contracting out arrangements between CMP and Kawartha was to defeat the union's bargaining rights. Thus, by entering into that arrangement and laying-off three-quarters of the employees in the bargaining unit, CMP breached section 64 and 66 of the Labour Relatons Act. Furthermore, the Board finds that Kawartha, as an employer or a person acting on behalf of CM P, also contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Act by entering into those contracting out arrangements with full knowledge that one of the purposes, if not the only purpose, of those arrangements was to interfere with the representation of the employees in question be the Union and to compel them to cease to exercise their rights under the Act.

33. Mr. Kurz took over responsibility for bargaining with the Union in late July or early August of 1981. The only explanation offered for the substitution of Mr. Kurz in place of Mr. Bhakta as CMP's representative at the bargaining table was the following testimony of Mr. Kurz: "It was decided the Mr. Bhakta was not the man who should be coming to the hearing [of the Union's unfair labour practice complaint]. I was."

34. CMP never at any time raised at the bargaining table its decision to contract out approximately three-quarters of the bargaining unit work to Kawartha. It is clear from the Board's jurisprudence that a decision of that magnitude made while collective bargaining is ongoing must be raised by the employer for discussion at the bargaining table prior to implementation. The extent of an employer's obligation during bargaining to reveal decisions which significantly impact upon the employees in the bargaining unit or their bargaining agent has been addressed at length by the Board in a number of recent cases and need not be repeated in this decision. (See, for example, Westinghouse Canada Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. April 57; application for judicial review dismissed, 80 CLLC ¶ 14, 062 (Div. Ct.); and Sunnycrest Nursing Homes Limited, [1982] OLRB Rep. Feb. 261.) There is no doubt that the decision taken by CMP in the instant case falls within the parameters outlined in that jurisprudence. The decision in question directly affected three-quarters of the work force. Thus, the present case involves an even more substantial decision than the decision by the respondent in Sunnycrest (supra) to contract out one-quarter of the bargaining unit work, which decision was held by the Board to be a matter that was required by section 15 to be raised by the respondent for discussion at the bargaining table. Although most of the CMP rackers and unrackers were offered employment by Kawartha, CMP's decision to eliminate three-quarters of the bargaining unit positions struck at the very root of the bargaining relationship the bargaining unit itself. Thus, even if that decision had been wholly free of anti-union animus, the failure to raise and discuss it at the bargaining table would nevertheless constitute a serious contravention of section 15 of the Act.

35. After the employees in question had been "laid off' by CMP and hired by Kawartha, Mr. Batten contacted Mr. Kurz in an effort to arrange a bargaining meeting and stated that he wanted "to attend with the bargaining committee that he had before the [lay-off]". Mr. Kurz responded that those people had been laid off by CMP and that he could not bargain on their behalf. Moreover, as he conceded in cross-examination, he was "not prepared to recognize the committee that had been named by the Union." This refusal to meet and bargain with the bargaining committee appointed by the Union also constituted a breach of section 15. (See Arnold-Nasco Limited, [1978] OLRB Rep. July 587; The Journal Publishing Company of Ottawa Limited, [1977] OLRB Rep. June 309; House of Braemore Upholstered Furniture, [1967] OLRB Rep. Jan. 815; and No-Snag Spring Co. (1968), 68 CLLC ¶ 14,088 (Ont. County Court).)

36. Notwithstanding Mr. Kurz's illegal refusal to meet and bargain with the Union committee, Mr. Batten decided to go ahead with the bargaining meeting that had been arranged for September 22nd. At that meeting Mr. Kurz advised him that he (Mr. Kurz) would only negotiate about the small group of employees who remained in the employ of CM P, and not about the persons who had become employees of Kawartha. Mr. Batten suggested that they try to reach a collective agreement and bring the matter of the bargaining unit before the Board for determination. However, Mr. Kurz rejected that suggestion.

37. Thus, it is abundantly clear from the evidence that CMP has flagrantly and repeatedly violated section 15 of the Act. It failed to meet with the Union within fifteen days from the time when it received the Union's written notice of its desire to bargain with a view to making a collective agreement. It refused to recognized the Union's status as bargaining agent for its bargaining unit employees despite the fact that the Union had been certified by this Board in March of 1981. This refusal continued even after the Board declined to reconsider its decision to certify the Union as the bargaining agent of the employees of CMP without a representation vote. It failed to raise for discussion at the bargaining table its decision to contract out three-quarters of the bargaining unit work to Kawartha. In September it refused to meet and bargain with the members of the negotiating committee that had been selected by the Union.

38. The Board will now return to the issue of whether Lawrence, Plastic and CMP contravened the Act in June of 1981 when Plastic terminated its arrangement with Lawrence under which the latter had supplied employees to the former for the performance of painting work at the CMP plant, and immediately hired the dismissed employees to continue performing the painting work at the CMP plant. Although Mr. Craybeek was unwilling to acknowledge ;hat Plastic gained any material advantage by terminating its labour supply arrangement with Lawrence and hiring the former Lawrence employees directly, it is clear from the evidence that the new arrangement enabled Plastic to schedule production on Saturdays without always paying time and one half (as required by the collective agreement between Lawrence and the Union), and also enabled it to obtain subsidized employees through Ebb, which might not have been possible for Lawrence to do on behalf of Plastic in the view of the union security clause contained in that collective agreement. Moreover, from the perspective of CMP for which Plastic was performing the painting work, the removal of the painters from ;he Lawrence bargaining unit served to weaken the Union's presence in the plant during a period in which the Union was attempting to negotiate a collective agreement with CMP. Having regard to all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board is satisfied that it was not a mere coincidence that within a matter of weeks, CMP used a similar approach to remove three-quarters of its work force from the CMP bargaining unit by contracting the racking and unracking to Kawartha. The evidence indicates that Messrs Kurz, Veselinovic, Egeti and Craybeek were all of the view that the Union's bargaining rights could be effectively reduced or eliminated by the simple expedient of arranging to have the unionized company lay off or terminate some or all of its unionized employees and contract the work previously performed by them to another company for which the Union had not been certified, which latter company would then hire those employees to perform the same work that they had previously performed. Moreover, in the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that anti-union animus Formed a part of the motivation, if not the sole motivation, for each of the many "transfers" of work and employees from company to company that were orchestrated by the respondents, with the exception of the "transfer" of employees from Plastic to Lawrence in October of l9~0, which "transfer" was apparently carried out in order to fulfill Mr. Lawrence's earlier written undertaking to do so. In particular, the Board finds that Lawrence, Plastic and CMP contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Act in June of 1981 by their aforementioned activities.

39. Mr. Batten testified that the movement of employees from company to company by the respondents has caused frustration and discouragement among the union organizers and supporters. He told the Board that it has become difficult to talk to the employees because there "seems to be a fear" among them.

40. In considering the appropriate remedial response where an employer's contracting out of work has been found to constitute an unfair labour practice, the Board wrote as follows in Sunnycrest Nursing Homes Limited, supra:

"45. Section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act gives the Board a broad authority to fashion an appropriate remedy for any breach of the substantive provisions of the Act. In this regard, the legislative imprint has seen lightly laid. Because of the dynamic context of labour relations, and the variety of factual patterns which it was expected would [come] before the board, the Legislature has not attempted to enumerate fixed remedies for each of the substantive violations committed. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that the Legislature did not intend to engage in the empty gesture of creating rights without parallel remedies. The obvious implication of the language of section 89(4) is that the Board should attempt to fashion relief which is adapted to the situation which calls for redress. (For a general discussion of the Board's remedial authority see:

Radio Shack [1979] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1220; application for judicial review dismissed sub nomine Tandy Electronics Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America and Ontario Labour Relations Board, 80 CLLC paragraph 14 017, Ontario Divisional Court.)

46. It is axiomatic that remedial action, if it is to afford an effective redress for the commission of a statutory wrong, must be tailored to restore the person wronged to the position he would have occupied but for the action of the wrongdoer. Nothing less would effectuate the policies of the Act. In the case of employees who have been wrongly discharged, the Board typically orders that they be reinstated and made whole for any loss of pay or benefits suffered from the date of their termination until their reinstatement, and in addition, will usually require some affirmative action on the part of the employer — such as the posting of notices in order to dispel the chilling effect on the exercise of statutory rights which the unfair labour practice may have caused. (See: Valdi Inc. [1980] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1254, Fotomat Canada Limited [1980] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1397, Radio Shack, supra, and Westinghouse, supra, for examples of remedial orders fashioned by the Board and in the case of Radio Shack and Westinghouse approved by the Courts.) It is recognized that to accomplish the reinstatement of illegally terminated employees, the employer may well have to terminate replacements who have been hired or rescind business arrangements which flowed from or followed the unfair labour practice. Only when such action is taken however, can it be really truly said that the wrong has been righted.

47. In our view, the situation is no different, and the need for a reinstatement remedy no less compelling, where an employer illegally subcontracts work performed by its employees and, in so doing, effects their termination. In both cases, the employees have been punished for exercising their statutory rights. The wrong is the same, and we can perceive no reason why the remedy should not be the same as well. In order to give effect to the reinstatement of his employees, the employer may be required to terminate his subcontract, but we do not believe such a requirement is unfairly imposed. But for the employer's breach of the Act, his employees would have remained in his employ."

48. Similar considerations have led the Board to conclude that the respondents in the instant case should be directed to restore the status quo ante that existed prior to the illegal "transfer" of painters from Lawrence to Plastic in June of 1981, and the illegal "transfer" of rackers and unrackers from CMP to Kawartha in late July of that year. (Although some of the earlier "transfers" of employees, such as the transfer of rackers and unrackers from Lawrence to CMP in late 1980 or early 1981, may also have been effected for the purpose of defeating the Union's bargaining rights, the Board is not disposed to attempt to restore the status quo ante with respect to those transfers due to the lengthy period of time which has elapsed since then, and because the Union elected to restore that loss of bargaining rights by applying for and obtaining certification as bargaining agent for employees of CMP, including those employees who had left the employ of Lawrence to become employees of CMP as a result of the cancellation by CMP of Lawrence's labour supply contract.) Moreover, CMP's failure to raise at the bargaining table its decision to contract out that work to Kawartha, in contravention of section 15, reinforces our view that it is appropriate for the Board to direct that the status quo ante be restored. As observed by the Board in the Sunnycrest case (at paragraph 47):

"It would be an exercise in futility to attempt to remedy this kind of violation if the employer's decision to subcontract were to stand. No genuine bargaining over a decision to terminate a phase of its operations can be conducted where that decision has already been made and implemented. Nor would it make much sense to direct an employer to bargain with a union representing its employees over the termination of jobs which those employees no longer hold. The subsequent provision of a bargaining opportunity cannot cure the violation inherent in the elimination of unit work without notice or consultation. No meaningful negotiation could take place over a fait accompli, where the possible reinstatement of unlawfully terminated employees could be used by the employer as bargaining bait to induce acceptance of its terms. An order framed in this way would aggravate rather than cure the employer's delinquent bargaining conduct. Since the loss of employment stemmed, (in part), from their employer's unlawful action in bypassing their bargaining agent, we believe that a realistic bargaining order can be fashioned only by directing the employer to restore his employees to the positions which they held prior to their termination.”

42. In the circumstances of this case, the Board is not dissuaded from granting plenary remedial relief to the applicant by the fact that a number of months have passed since the occurrence of the contraventions of the Act which form the subject matter of these proceedings. The Union quite properly attempted to avoid the need for litigation by making a bonafide effort to resolve matters through collective bargaining. After these proceedings had been commenced, the Union continued to seek a settlement which would be satisfactory to all of the parties. Scheduling difficulties, exacerbated by the relatively large number of parties, also delayed the adjudication of these matters to some extent. Moreover, the completion of the hearing in these matters on the merits, which commenced on January 29, 1982 and continued on February 12, March 16, 17 and 18, and April 14, was substantially delayed by the failure of CMP to properly marshal the oral and documentary evidence necessary for it to fulfill its statutory obligations under sections 1(5) and 63(13) to adduce at the hearing all facts within its knowledge material to the allegations that associated or related activities or businesses are or were carried on by CMP and Kawartha, and that Kawartha is the successor of CMP by virtue of a sale of a business. In an attempt to remedy that failure, the Board, on January 29, 1982, ordered CMII to produce "Mr. Luba Veselinovic or some other individual who has direct knowledge concerning the incorporation of the respondent Plastics CMP Limited and all other facts material to the section 63 and 1(4) applications, pertaining to the period from the incorporation of the company to July of 1981 when Mr. Kurz became the General Manager of the company." CM P's initial failure to comply with that order further delayed the hearing of these matters to the prejudice of the applicant and the persons whom it represents.

43. The Board, therefore, declares:

44. that the respondent Plastics CMP Limited has contravened sections 15, 64, 66 and 79 of the Labour Relations Act; and

45. that the respondents Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd., 440172 Ontario Limited, and 374686 Ontario Limited have contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

46. To remedy those contraventions of the Act, the Board orders:

47. that the respondent Plastics CMP Limited cease and desist from breaching sections 15, 64, 66 and 79 of the Labour Relations Act;

48. that the respondents Barry J. Lawrence Management Limited, 440172 Ontario Limited and 374686 Ontario Limited cease and desist from breaching sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act;

49. that the respondent Plastics CMP Limited forthwith reinstate in employment all the employees whom it laid-off, terminated or otherwise refused to continue to employ on July 31, 1981, and that the respondents Plastics CMP Limited fully compensate each of those employees for all lost wages and benefits sustained through those respondents' violations of the Act, together with interest calculated in the manner described in Practice Note 13, dated September 8, 1980;

50. that the respondent Plastics CMP Limited, on receipt of this decision, convene forthwith a series of bargaining meetings between itself and the complainant trade union, with the assistance of a Ministry of Labour mediator, at such times and for as long as the mediator deems necessary, and bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement with the complainant;

51. that the respondent Plastics CMP Limited pay to all bargaining unit employees all monetary losses that the complainant can establish by reasonable proof as arising from the loss of opportunity to negotiate heretofore a collective agreement due to the respondent's unlawful conduct, the said losses, if any, running up to the date of the first bargaining meeting convened in accordance with paragraph (4) of this order;

52. that the respondent Plastics CMP Limited forthwith provide the complainant with a list of names and addresses of employees in the bargaining unit, and keep that list updated on a monthly basis for one year or until it has entered into a collective agreement with the complainant, whichever shall first occur;

53. that the respondent Barry J. Lawrence Ltd. forthwith reinstate in employment all of the employees working as painters at the Plastics CMP Limited plant in June of 1981 whom it laid off, terminated or otherwise refused to continue to employ in June of 1981; that the respondents Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd., Plastics CMP Limited and 440172 Ontario Limited enter into such arrangements as may be necessary to enable the respondent Barry J. Lawrence to employ those persons as painters working at the Plastics CMP Limited plant; and that the respondents Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd., Plastics CMP Limited and 440172 Ontario Limited fully compensate each of those employees for all lost wages and benefits sustained through those respondents' violations of the Act, together with interest calculated in the manner described in Practice Note 13, dated September 8, 1980;

54. that the respondent Plastics CMP Limited, at its own expense, mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix" after being duly signed by an authorized representative of each of the respondents, to the residence of each person employed by it on the date of this decision and to the residence of each person employed by it on July 30, 1981, in Peterborough, Ontario, save and except foremen, those above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff, licensed electricians, and those covered by an existing collective agreement between Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd. and the complainant;

55. that the respondent Barry J. Lawrence Management Ltd.. at its own expense, mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix" after being duly signed by an authorized representative of each of the respondents, to the residence of each person employed by it on the date of this decision and to each person employed by it at any time during the month of June of 1981, at Plastics CMP Limited in the Municipality of Peterborough, Ontario, save and except foremen and persons above the rank of foreman, sales and office staff, persons regularly employed for not more than 24 hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period; and

56. that the respondents post copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" after being duly signed by an authorized representative of each of the respondents, in conspicuous places on their premises where they are likely to come to the attention of employees, and keep the notices posted for sixty consecutive working days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by each of the respondents to ensure that the said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Reasonable physical access shall be given by the respondents to a representative of the complainant so that the complainant can satisfy itself that these posting requirements are being complied with.

57. Counsel for the Union requested that the Board order the respondents to compensate his client for all of the organizing, legal and other costs which have been "thrown away" as a result of the respondents' contraventions of the Act. However, the Board is not disposed to make such order at this point in time. Whether such costs will in fact have been "thrown away" is at least partially dependent upon whether the complainant succeeds in negotiating a collective agreement with CMP and restoring its bargaining rights for the painters employed by Lawrence prior to July of 1981. The Board has made an extensive remedial order with a view to assisting the complainant in achieving those goals. Thus, we are of the view that counsel's request is premature. However, if the Board's order does not achieve the desired result, it may be appropriate for the complainant to apply to the Board under section 106 of the Act for reconsideration and variance of the Board's order.

58. As more than six months have elapsed since the occurrence of all of the events upon which the applicant relies in support of its application for consent to prosecute the respondents, the Board declines to grant such consent. As stated by the Board in Weingarden & Hawrish, [1975] OLRB Rep. Aug. 608, at paragraph 2:

"In considering the granting of consent to prosecute the Board is guided by the provisions of the Summary Convictions Act which provides that no proceedings can be instituted more than six months after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose. The Board will not give consent to the institution of a prosecution which would be abortive because of untimeliness under the above Act."

(See also Sheffield Bronze Powder Company, [1979] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1110; and Freeman Electric Limited, [1972] OLRB Rep. Sept. 822.) Although The Summary Convictions Act has been repealed, a six month limitation period continues to apply to such prosecutions by virtue of section 76(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.400, which provides:

"Proceedings shall not be commenced after the expiration of any limitation period prescribed for the offence or, where no limitation period is prescribed, after six months after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed."

Therefore, the application for consent to prosecute is hereby dismissed.

47. Counsel for the Union also contended that there had been a sale of a business by CMP to Kawartha at the beginning of August of 1981. In support of his position he noted that the same employees were performing the same work under the same supervision in the same plant under the same conditions without any hiatus in production. Although CMP clearly did not sell to Kawartha all of its metal plating of plastic automotive components business, section 63 applies not only to the sale of the totality of an employer's business but also the sale of ‘a part or parts thereof' (see section 63(1)). In Vaunclair Meats Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. May 581, the Board reviewed a number of its previous decisions concerning the meaning to be ascribed to the words "part of a business" and concluded (at paragraph 28):

"28. In each of the cases to which we have referred, the Board found that the predecessor had transferred a coherent and severable part of its economic organization — managerial or employee skills, plant, equipment, 'know-how' or goodwill, thereby allowing the successor to perform a definable part of the economic functions formerly performed by the predecessor. This economic organization undertook activities which gave rise to employment, and the terms and conditions of employment, together with the union's right to bargain about them, were preserved. The part of the predecessor's business which it no longer wished to continue, provided the business opportunity which the successor was able to pursue to its own advantage. In all of the cases, there was a transfer of a distinct part of the predecessor's configuration of assets, and no material change in the character of the work performed by employees within that asset framework. There was a continuation of the work performed, the essential attributes of the employment relationship, the skills of employees, and the functional coherence of at least a part of the employee complement; and but for section 55 [now section 63], the established bargaining and collective agreement rights would have been lost. This was the very mischief to which section 55 is directed, and the Board was satisfied on the evidence in each case that it should be applied."

48. In the present case, CMP did not transfer a coherent and severable part of its economic organization to Kawartha. There was no transfer of a distinct part of CMP's configuration of assets. The racking and unracking work which was contracted out to Kawartha is not severable from CM P's metal plating business. Moreover, even if the racking and unracking could be construed to be a part of CMP's business, the restoration of the status quo ante ordered by the Board in this decision will return that "part" to CMP, thereby transferring back to CMF any bargaining rights which might otherwise have attached to Kawartha. For the foregoing reasons, the Union's application under section 63 is hereby dismissed.

49. Accordingly, the section 1(4) application in File No. 1719-81-R is withdrawn at the request of the applicant and with the consent of the Board. The application for consent to institute a prosecution of the respondents (File No. 1044-81-U) is dismissed, as is the section 63 application (File No. 1718-81-R). The applicant's complaint under section 89 (File No. 1043-81-U) is granted and the Board remains seized of that matter in the event that a dispute arises concerning the implementation of the Board's order set forth above.

DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER C. G. BOURNE;

The decision of Board Member C. G. Bourne will issue at a later date.

Appendix

The Labour Relations Act

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board

WE HAVE POSTED THIS NOTICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD, ISSUED AFTER A SERIES OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD. THE BOARD FOUND THAT PLASTICS CMP LIMITED (“CMP") VIOLATED SECTIONS 15, 64, 66 AND 79 OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, AND THAT BARRY J. LAWRENCE MANAGEMENT LTD. (“LAWRENCE"), 4140172 ONTARIO LIMITED ("PLASTIC PAINTERS") AND 3714686 ONTARIO LIMITED ("KAWARTHA") VIOLATED SECTIONS 64 AND 66 OF THAT ACT, AND HAS ORDERED US TO INFORM THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RIGHTS.

THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT GIVES ALL EMPLOYEES THESE RIGHTS:

To ORGANIZE THEMSELVES,

To FORM, JOIN AND PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF A TRADE UNION,

To ACT TOGETHER FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,

To REFUSE TO DO ANY OR ALL OF THESE THINGS.

WE ASSURE ALL OUR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THESE RIGHTS,

WE WILL CEASE AND DESIST FROM VIOLATING THE ACT,

CMP WILL REINSTATE FORTHWITH IN EMPLOYMENT ALL. EMPLOYEES WHOM IT LAID OFF, TERMINATED OR OTHERWISE REFUSED TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY ON JULY 31, 1981, AND THOSE EMPLOYEES WILL BE FULLY COMPENSATED BY CMP AND KAWARTHA FOR ALL LOST WAGES AND BENEFITS SUSTAINED THROUGH THOSE RESPONDENTS' VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT TOGETHER WITH INTEREST,

CMP WILL CONVENE FORTHWITH BARGAINING MEETINGS BETWEEN ITSELF AND THE UNITED CEMENT, LIME & GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (THE "UNION') WITH THE A,SISTANCE OF A MINISTRY OF LABOUR MEDIATOR AND WILL BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH AND MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION,

CMP WILL PAY TO ALL BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES ALL MONETARY LOSSES.. IF ANY, ARISING FROM THE LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE HERETOFORE A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT DUE TO CMP's UNLAWFUL CONDUCT,

CMP WILL FORTHWITH PROVIDE THE COMPLAINANT WITH A LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT, AND WILL KEEP THAT LIST UPDATED ON A MONTHLY BASIS, LAWRENCE WILL FORTHWITH REINSTATE IN EMPLOYMENT ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING AS PAINTERS AT THE CMP PLANT IN JUNE OF 1981 WHOM IT LAID OFF, TERMINATED OR OTHERWISE REFUSED TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY IN JUNE OF 1981, AND THOSE

EMPLOYEES WILL BE FULLY COMPENSATED BY LAWRENCE, CMP AND PLASTIC PAINTERS FOR ALL LOST WAGES AND BENEFITS SUSTAINED THROUGH THOSE RESPONDENTS' VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST.

PLASTICS CMP LIMITED BARRY J. LAWRENCE MANAGEMENT LTD. PER: ______________________________ PER: _______________________________

14140172 ONTARIO LTD. 374686 ONTARIO LIMITED PER: _____________________________ PER: ________________________________

This is an official notice of the Board and must not be removed or defaced.