[1981] OLRB Rep. April 489
2679-80-R International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (U.A.W.), Applicant, v. Teledyne Canada Metal Products, Respondent, v. Group of Employees, Objectors.
BEFORE: Pamela C. Picher, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members M. J. Fenwick and E. C. Went.
APPEARANCES: H. Carl Anderson and Jack Pawson for the applicant; Moira M. Trask and Wallace Nutt for the respondent; Philip Parsons for the objectors.
DECISION OF PAMELA C. PICHER, VICE-CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBER E. C. WENT; April 1, 1981
This is an application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(n) of The Labour Relations Act.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board further finds that all employees of the respondent in Woodstock, Ontario, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff and students employed during the school vacation period, constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining.
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 17, 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.
Two timely statements of desire were filed with the Board in opposition to this application for certification. Given the extent of overlap between persons who signed both the petition and membership cards in the union the petitions would, if proved to be voluntary, cause the Board to exercise its discretion under section 7(2) of the Act and order the taking of a representation vote.
The two persons who circulated the petitions, Mr. Philip Parsons and Mr. Alex Thompson, gave evidence as to the origination, preparation, and circulation of the petitions as well as their delivery to the Board. The Board is satisfied on the basis of all the evidence presented that management did not involve itself in the petition. In fact when Parsons asked Mr. Wally Nutt, a member of management, if he knew whether an application for certification had been filed, Mr. Nutt told the petitioner he would have to ask someone else because as a member of management he could not discuss it. On another occasion management was openly impartial as between employees supporting the union and those opposed to the union. A union supporter approached a supervisor complaining that Parsons, on company time, was trying to get people to sign the petition against the union. The supervisor then told Parsons that he would be subject to discipline if he used company time to organize or circulate a petition in the same way a union supporter would be disciplined if he tried to sign union cards on company time.
The union argues that the petition is not voluntary because of statements made by Parsons at a union meeting. Parsons expressed the view that benefits might be cut and that the plant might close for a while if the union got in. He mentioned in particular another Teledyne plant that had closed down for 6 weeks because of bargaining difficulties with the union. Parsons is not a member of management and would not reasonably be perceived by employees as such. Nor, in the Board's view, would he be viewed as having the ear of management. Parsons is a truck driver for the company. The Board concludes on the evidence that the ordinary employee would view the comments made by Parsons as an expression of his personal thoughts and not as a reliable reflection of what management would in fact do if the union got in. Further, these comments were made in an open forum where the union had every opportunity for rebuttal. Accordingly, the Board is satisfied that Parsons' comments at the union meeting do not adversely affect the voluntary nature of the petition.
To further support its submission that the petition is not voluntary, the union brought evidence relating to a letter given to each employee by management the day prior to the terminal date. The letter reads as follows:
March 16th, 1981
To): All Teledyne Canada Metal Products Hourly Employees
Dear Employee:
Yu may have heard of an unfortunate incident which appears to have taken place on Saturday in which one of your fellow employees was allegedly punched by another employee.
The Company views this very seriously and is in the process of investigating this incident. We do not yet know whether the incident arose because of the Union's attempt to organize our plant.
In the meantime, you should know that if the Union organizers, or those against the Union, attempt to intimidate employees, the Labour Relations Board will not tolerate this. The law of Ontario protects both your right to join a trade union, or your right not to join a trade union. Your rights and true wishes in this Application for Certification, whatever they may be, will be protected by the law and respected by the Company.
Feelings often run high during union organization attempts. The Company objects to threats, intimidation, fighting, etc. among employees who are in favour of or against the Union. We must all work together and respect each other's wishes and opinions.
You, as an individual, must make this important decision according to your own convictions knowing that the law protects your right to choose freely.
Sincerely yours, "A. F. Searls" Albert E. Searls, AES/sl Plant Manager
Prior to the circulation of this letter management had met with the shop committee which is composed of 4 elected employees and the two employees involved in the incident referred to in the letter. They had not completed their investigation of the incident at that meeting. At the end of the meeting, however, management caused the shop committee to believe that the matter would not be openly discussed outside the meeting. Quite understandably, therefore, the member of the shop committee who testified before the Board was upset when he received management's letter to all employees on the subject of the incident.
One of the employees involved in the altercation, Mr. James Ford, testified that on the Monday morning following the incident the other employee involved was telling everyone that Ford had hit him because he wouldn't sign a union card. The union argues that the publication of the company's letter in the context of the rumours referred to above had the effect of confirming the rumours instead of quashing them, and thereby adversely affecting the union. In these circumstances the union argues that the petition signatures obtained following the letter would not be voluntary.
The Board cannot accept this submission. Notwithstanding rumours which may have been spread around the plant prior to the company's letter, the Board views the letter as evenhanded. It assured all employees that their right to join or not to join a union was protected by