Welland Typographical Union, Local 927 v. Welland Evening Tribune, 1982 CanLII 868

Welland Typographical Union, Local 927 v. Welland Evening Tribune

Citation: [1982] OLRB Rep. March 513 File No.: 2460-81-R Date: March 26, 1982

Between: Welland Typographical Union, Local 927, Applicant, v. Welland Evening Tribune, a Division of Canadian Newspapers Company Limited, Respondent, v. Group of Employees, Objectors

Before: M. G. Picher, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and S. Cooke.

Appearances: Mary Cornish, R. Weatherdon, R. Earles, D. Esposti and S. Lund for the applicant; D. W. Brady, W. J. Ryrie and J. Van Kooten for the respondent; Glenn Mullis for the objectors.

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. This is an application for certification.

2. The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.

3. The petitions filed in opposition to the application were not numerically relevant as none of the signatures upon them overlap the signatures on the union membership evidence filed. The Board did not, therefore, inquire into the origination and circulation of the statements of objection.

4. The respondent submits that the employees should be divided into two units for collective bargaining purposes, namely, employees in the editorial department on the one hand and employees in all other unorganized departments (being office, clerical and sales employees) on the other hand. The respondent already has two production bargaining units, which include five pressmen and fifteen composing room employees. The union submits that the editorial staff should be bargaining in the same unit as the office, clerical and sales employees.

5. As the representations of the parties suggest, there appears to be little consistency in the pattern of white-collar newspaper bargaining units in Canada. In some newspapers journalists bargain separately while in others they are included in comprehensive units with office, clerical and sales staff. In this case the parties had very differing views of what the editorial employees would want.

6. Since the Board's decision in The Spectator, [1981] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1177, it has taken an open and pragmatic attitude to the rationalizing of bargaining structures in applications for certification in the newspaper industry (see Peterborough Examiner, [1982] OLRB Rep. Mar. 432. It appears to us more constructive to allow the Board's approach to evolve on a case by case basis, allowing both the parties involved in the industry and the Board the benefit from the acquired knowledge of the cases as they develop. The Board's desire to retain some flexibility and tailor the bargaining unit to the circumstances of each case was reflected in its comments in the Peterborough Examiner on the very issue raised in this case:

On the basis of the material before us and the representations of the parties we are not, however, persuaded that a single bargaining unit is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. In a small newspaper where employees perform a range of functions, or where the number of employees in separate editorial, clerical and production units might be too small to generate an effective bargaining presence, a different result might obtain. In those circumstances employees in the various departments of a newspaper may be seen by the Board as having a sufficient community of interest to bargain as a single unit. Where, however, office clerical and sales employees on the one hand, and editorial staff on the other hand, are found in numbers sufficient to establish viable bargaining structures that can adequately represent their separate interests the Board will be open to separate units along the lines suggested in The Spectator. As the NLRB approach and the history of collective bargaining for journalists in Canada suggest there is substantial precedent for editorial staff bargaining as a separate unit in appropriate circumstances (see generally, Royal Commission of Newspapers, Volume 5, Research Publications, "Labour Relations in the Newspaper Industry" (1981) (The Kent Commission)).

8. In this case the parties agreed that the wishes of the editorial staff should be canvassed and be part of the evidence available to the Board to assist in its determination of the bargaining unit. To that end they have agreed to the taking of a vote among the editorial staff to determine whether they wish to bargain separately or in a larger unit including office, clerical and sales staff. While the Board does not normally canvass the wishes of individual employees on their preference of bargaining structure, it has the latitude to do so under section 6(1) of the Act. In the special circumstances of this case, given the agreement of the parties and the likelihood of an early vote, we see no reason not to do so. The applicant will be certifiable whether the Board establishes one or two bargaining units. A vote of the employees in the editorial department of the respondent shall therefore be taken, the ballot to be in the form agreed by the parties in consultation with the Labour Relations Officer. The voting constituency shall be:

All editorial employees of the respondent, save and except publisher, managing director, city editor, news/ wire editor, persons regularly employed for not more than 24 hours per week and students employed in the school vacation period.

9. The returning officer is instructed to segregate any ballot cast by Wayne Redshaw, described by the respondent as sports editor.

10. The Board hereby appoints a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report to the Board on the duties and responsibilities of sports editor and secretary to the publisher.

11. The matter is referred to the Registrar.