[1983] OLRB Rep. June 929
2653-82-U Employees of Manor Cleaners Ltd., Complainant, v. Textile Processors, Service Trade, Health Care, Professional and Technical Employees International Union, Local 351, Respondent
BEFORE: M. G. Picher, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members, J. A. Ronson and P. J. O'Keeffe.
APPEARANCES: Mike Quinn, Dorothy Franko, Laxmi Badiani and Mary Jane McCallum for the complainants; Richard McNaughton for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 31, 1983
1This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act. The grievors allege that they have been dealt with by the respondent contrary to the provisions of sections 70 and 72(5) of the Act. The complaint was drafted by rank and file employees and on the hearing of the case it became apparent that the substance of the complaint was an alleged violation of section 68 of the Act as well as section 72(5).
2The facts are not in dispute. By a decision of the Board dated December 8, 1982 the respondent trade union was certified as bargaining agent for all full time employees of the respondent in its cleaning establishments in St. Catharines. The bargaining unit comprises some 30 employees. The complainants maintain that the trade union has failed in its obligation to represent them in good faith. They submit that it has wrongfully failed or refused to meet and consult with them in the preparation of the union's bargaining objectives and strategy.
3The union was certified on December 8, 1982 pursuant to section 8 of the Act. The Board's order included the right to conduct two meetings with the employees on the employer's premises. The evidence establishes that the union availed itself of the opportunity to have one meeting with the employees at work. At that time union representative Fernando DiSalvo introduced himself to the employees and indicated to them that there would be a further meeting.
4The next notification which the employees received from the union was a written notice in February of 1983 advising them that a union meeting was to take place at 6:30 a.m. at the Holiday Inn in St. Catharines on Friday March 4, 1983. The notice to employees is as follows:
REGISTERED MAIL
February, 1983.
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MANOR CLEANERS LIMITED
Please be advised that there will be a Union Meeting:
Date: Friday March 4th, 1983.
Time: 6:30 A.M.
Place: Holiday Inn, St. Catherines.
PLEASE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ATTEND!!!!
5The uncontradicted evidence is that some 22 employees attended at the hotel on the morning of the meeting. When they attempted to enter the room they were advised by union representative Richard McNaughton that a strike vote was going to take place and that if they wanted to enter and participate they would have to sign union cards and pay union initiation dues for doing so. Through the open door of the meeting room the employees could see a head table which seated three union officers. No employees were in the room.
6It is plain that the employees, many of whom are mothers of small children, were not pleased that the union called the meeting for that time of the morning. Their unhappiness was aggravated by the statement of the union's representative that they must pay initiation fees and join the union to enter the room and to participate in the taking of a strike vote. All of the employees refused to attend on the terms put to them, and they left.
7It is plainly contrary to the Act to exclude employees from a strike vote simply on the basis that they are not union members. Section 72(5) of the Act provides as follows:
All employees in a bargaining unit, whether or not such employees are members of the trade union or of any constituent union of a council of trade unions, shall be entitled to participate in a strike vote or a vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement.
8The employees have had no other contact from the union save that in the preliminary settlement of a complaint to this Board the union agreed to the election of one employee to the union's bargaining committee. That individual, Mrs. Dorothy Franko, referred to by the union's representative as the "shop steward" has no previous knowledge of collective bargaining. While there have been a number of bargaining sessions at which she was present there has been no attempt by the union to schedule any meetings for the bargaining committee to report to the membership or seek of its views.
9It is difficult to conceive how the duty of fair representation can be discharged when the bargaining agent in an industrial setting fails entirely to meet with the employees prior to or any time during the bargaining process. While a union may be understandably reluctant to meet with a sector of employees who are not supportive of its efforts, the duty of fair representations is owed to all employees. Moreover, the extensive section 89 remedies ordered in this case, including access orders and meetings with the employees during working time, were specifically aimed at assisting the union to overcome such difficulties. We do not see how a trade union can be said to represent in good faith employees which it has failed or refused to meet and upon whom it has imposed unlawful conditions in the taking of a strike vote.
10The Board therefore finds that the respondent has violated sections 68 and 72(5) of the Labour Relations Act. The respondent is ordered to forthwith convene a meeting of the employees at a time and place reasonably convenient to the employees for the purpose of reporting to them on the state of negotiations. In the event that an agreement has been reached, the meeting shall be for the purpose of providing copies of the collective agreement to the employees and a full explanation of the terms of the agreement to them as well as to answer questions on any other aspect of the collective bargaining process which they may have. The respondent shall further hold, at reasonable intervals, a minimum of three other meetings of the employees in the bargaining unit, after adequate written notice, within one year of this order, and a minimum of four such meetings annually thereafter as long as its bargaining rights continue. In the future the respondent shall refrain from taking or threatening to take any strike vote or ratification vote other than by a secret ballot available to all employees in the bargaining unit, whether or not they are members of the union.
11The respondent shall mail to each employee written notice of the time and place of the initial meeting ordered by the Board and shall include in its mailing a notice, duly signed by the appropriate official, in the form of the appendix attached hereto.
APPENDIX
We Textile, Processors, Service Trades, Health Care, Professional and Technical Employees International Union, Local 351, have issued this order in compliance with an order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued after a hearing in which we participated. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has found that we violated the Labour Relations Act and has ordered us to inform all employees in the bargaining unit of their rights.
The Act gives individual employees these rights:
To be represented by a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities.
To be represented by a trade union in a way that is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, whether or not they are members of that trade union,
To participate by secret ballot in any strike vote or ratification vote taken by a trade union in relation to a collective agreement.
We assure all employees represented by Local 351 of the Textile Processors, Service Trades, Health Care, Professional and Technical Employees International Union, that,
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights;
WE WILL comply with all orders of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
WE WILL give each employee a copy of the collective agreement.
WE WILL hold a minimum of four meetings of the employees in each year.
(Authorized Representative)
Textile Processors, Service Trades, Health Care, Professional and Technical Employees International Union, Local 351.