[1982] OLRB Rep. June 918
0340-82-R The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. The Board of Education for the City of North York, Respondent
BEFORE: D. E. Franks, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and W. F. Rutherford.
APPEARANCES: J. H. Bird for the applicant; W. J. MacNaughton, T. M. Park and Mrs. B. J. Fickert for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 23, 1982
- This is an application for certification wherein the applicant trade union seeks to represent certain employees of the respondent. At the hearing in this matter, both the applicant and the respondent requested the Board to find as an appropriate bargaining unit, the unit of employees agreed upon by both the applicant and the respondent. That bargaining unit is:
“all lifeguards employed by the respondent in its schools in the City of North York”
At the hearing in this matter, the Board raised with the parties the matter of whether in the present circumstances the Board should find as appropriate a "tag end" unit. That is, a bargaining unit in effect consisting of, "all employees of the respondent other than those covered by existing collective agreements".
The parties filed with the Board a list of existing collective bargaining relations which reads as follows:
“1. All teachers Public Schools;
All teachers Secondary Schools;
Having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, the history of the collective bargaining between the parties and the agreement of the parties, the Board finds that all full-time multicultural community workers, speech therapists, and speech pathologists employed by the respondent in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, save and except employees of the respondent employed in a confidential or managerial capacity, constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining;
All caretakers and matrons employed at its schools buildings in the City of North York, save and except assistant-supervisors and persons a above the rank of assistant supervisor;
All its employees in its Transportation Department, Garage and Warehouse Department in the City of North York, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor and office staff;
All teacher aides in the employ of the Board of Education for the Borough of North York in its schools in the Borough of North York;
All its office, clerical and technical employees and teacher aides employed at its schools and buildings in the City of North York, save and except supervisors and persons above the rank of supervisor, students employed during the school vacation period and employees covered by subsisting collective agreements with…”
It will be seen from this list that there have been some seven appropriate bargaining units although the parties took the position that some of these bargaining units were subsequently amalgamated into existing collective agreements.
The parties took the position, at the hearing, that the only other group of existing employees employed by the respondent and not covered by a collective agreement were a group of seven cooks in vocational schools. Although the respondent suggested that there may be other individual employees currently not covered by collective agreements, both the applicant and the respondent were of the view that it would be totally inappropriate to add together a unit of cooks and lifeguards since there was no community of interest. It was further suggested that if bargaining rights were sought by the applicant for these two groups, in all likelihood they would fit into two different existing collective agreements.
In the circumstances of this case we are not prepared to find a bargaining unit consisting of lifeguards as a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining. We are rather of the view that given the existing multiplicity of bargaining relationships which currently exist between the respondent and the applicant and other trade unions, that the Board should find as an appropriate bargaining unit a tag end unit.
In determining appropriate bargaining units, the Board has long held a policy against the fragmentation of bargaining units. Thus, in certain circumstances, where it finds specific groups of employees of an employer to be appropriate for collective bargaining, the Board in order to avoid a never ending multiplicity of bargaining relationships finds a tag end unit as the appropriate bargaining unit. In this regard, of course, it may very well be that certain employees who would have no community of interest are forced together for purposes of collective bargaining. It also, on the other hand, makes available collective bargaining to small groups of one or two employees who would not otherwise be able to avail themselves of collective bargaining. In the circumstances of the present case, there can be no doubt that the time is now ripe for the Board to find that the appropriate group for collective bargaining is all employees not currently covered by existing collective agreements or certifications and we so find notwithstanding the agreement of the parties to the proposed unit consisting of lifeguards.
The Board therefore finds that all employees of the respondent other than those covered by subsisting collective agreements or certifications constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining.
In view of the foregoing finding, the Board directs a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the list of employees in the above unit.