Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1983] OLRB Rep. April 521
0021-83-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant, v. Dynamic Closures Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: George W. Adams, Q.C., Chairman and Board Members F. W. Murray and B. L. Armstrong.
APPEARANCES: Michael Lynk, Henry G. Gareau and Brent MacDonell for the Applicant; R. W Kitchen and B. Labelle for the Respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 29, 1983
1This is an application for certification.
2The applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(p) of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant requests a unit of employees described as "all employees of the respondent company in the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff, regularly employed for not more than 24 hours per week, and students employed during the school vacation period." On the other hand, the respondent requests that the geographic scope of the unit be limited to "the City of Cornwall." The Board was advised that the existing plant is within the city limits of Cornwall but that two plants are currently being constructed some three miles away and outside the municipal boundaries of Cornwall in Long Sault. The Board was advised that the employer intends to move to these plants. One plant is scheduled for completion within four weeks and the other by late summer. The applicant seeks a unit that geographically embraces the planned move whereas the respondent contends that there are in effect two bargaining units and that no employees are employed in the one unit embracing the new location. In our view, where a relocation is intended at the time of the certification and the new site is within the labour market of the existing site, the bargaining unit should be described to embrace the planned move. To hold otherwise in the circumstances at hand, would be to grant the applicant a certificate of very little value. Counsel for the respondent suggested that the expansion of the unit could be a matter for bargaining. But it is clear that the respondent would not be obligated to recognize the applicant at the new location and that strike action to achieve that result would be unlawful. Accordingly, the Board finds all employees of the respondent company in the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff, regularly employed for not more than 24 hours per week, and students employed during the school vacation period to be a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining.
3On the evidence before us, the Board is further satisfied that more than fifty-five (55) percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the trade union as of April 15th, 1983, the time set by the Board for determining membership in a trade union pursuant to section 103(2)(j) of the Labour Relations Act.
4A certificate will therefore issue to the applicant.