Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. Beatrice Foods (Ontario) Limited
[1982] OLRB Rep. June 815
0305-82-R Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC:, Applicant, v. Beatrice Foods (Ontario) Limited, Respondent, v. Model Dairy Workers Union, Intervener
BEFORE: R. D. Howe, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and B. L. Armstrong.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 16, 1982
1In a decision dated May 31, 1982 in this application for certification, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees of the respondent in the following bargaining unit:
“all employees of the respondent in its Model Dairy Division at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week, students employed during the school vacation periods, and persons covered by a subsisting collective agreement.”
In paragraph 1 of that decision, the Board substituted “Beatrice Foods (Ontario) Limited” for “Model Dairy (Division of Beatrice Foods)” as the name of the respondent in the style of cause of this application.
2Upon receipt of that decision, a representative of the respondent forwarded the following letter to the Board:
“We acknowledge receipt of the Ontario Labour Relations Board decision in the above matter dated May 31, 1982.
We wish to draw to your attention an error in paragraph number 1 with respect to the name of the employer.
In the Reply to Application for Certification, the respondent stated the correct name as 'Beatrice Foods (Ontario) Limited, Model Dairy Division.'
At the meeting with the Board Officer on May 28, 1982, the name of the respondent was amended accordingly.
In the Board's decision, it has omitted in error the words ‘Model Dairy Division’.
We ask that the records be amended to include the full, correct name of the respondent.”
3Having considered the respondent's request, the Board is of the view that it would not be appropriate to amend the style of cause in the manner requested by the respondent. While a corporation may be subdivided into a number of divisions for operational, marketing and other purposes, the creation of such internal divisions does not change the fact that the legal entity which is the employer remains the corporation itself, which must have “Limited”, “Incorporated”, “Corporation”, “Ltd.”, “Inc.” or “Corp.” as the last word in its name (see Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 54, s. 8, and Canada Corporations Act, R.S.C 1970, c. C-32, s.25). To forestall various difficulties that might otherwise arise with respect to such matters as enforcement of Board decisions and orders, it is preferable (although it has not, to date, been the Board's unvarying practice) to include only the corporate name of an (incorporated) employer in the style of cause of an application or complaint. If, as in the present case, it is appropriate to restrict the applicant's bargaining rights to employees who work in a particular division that has been established by their corporate employer, this can be accomplished by referring to that division in the description of the bargaining unit, as was done in the aforementioned decision dated May 31, 1982 in which the unit was described as "all employees of the respondent in its Model Dairy Division at Sault Ste. Marie…”
(emphasis added).
4Therefore, the respondent's request for reconsideration and variance of the Board's decision dated May 31, 1982 in this matter is hereby dismissed.