Local Union 586, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Union Electric Supply Co. Limited

[1983] OLRB Rep. May 829

0105-83-R Local Union 586, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Applicant, v. Union Electric Supply Co. Limited, Respondent.

BEFORE: N. B. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman and Board Members B. L. Armstrong and F. W. Murray.

APPEARANCES: Win. J. Moore and Thomas K. Moftatt br the applicant, no one appearing for the respondent.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 19, 1983

1. This is an application for certification.

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

3. The Board further finds that all office and clerical employees of the respondent in the City of Ottawa, save and except the lighting supervisor, confidential secretary to the general manager, purchasing supervisor, credit manager, accountant, assistant district manager and salesmen, constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining.

4. The membership documents filed by the applicant in support of its applications were in the form of separate applications for membership and receipts. While the application is filed in the name of Local Union 586, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, each of the membership applications indicate that the person who has made it is applying for membership in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("I.B.E.W."). They contain no reference to Local Union 586. There is a space provided on the card in which to enter the number of the local union but in each case it was blank. The carbon copy of a separate receipt stapled to each membership application revealed the payment of $2.00 by the person to whom it had been issued and who is purported to have applied to join the I.B.E.W.. Each receipt bears the number 586 in a space following the designation "L.U. No. ...". Each receipt contains the statement that the $2.00 was paid for "Application to join Local 586" and the signature of the person to whom it was issued follows immediately below that statement.

5. The Board's decision in Bernardin of Canada Limited, 1975] OLRB Rep. Oct. 737, which deals with an application for certification by a sister local of the applicant, deals with membership evidence similar in nature to that now before the Board. The Board in that case, in refusing to accept the evidence as being evidence of membership in the applicant, commented as follows:

4. At the hearing in this matter the Board raised for representation by the parties the conclusion that should be drawn for purposes of section 7(1) of the Act as a result of the nature of the membership cards filed by the applicant in support of its claim for bargaining rights. The application is filed under the name of "Local 1590, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers." The membership cards indicate that an applicant for membership is applying "for membership in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL-C1O-CLC)." The spaces reserved for insertion of "a local no." were left blank on each of the 37 application for membership cards filed in support of the application. In thirty-two instances it was indicated by a separate document stapled to the application for membership card that the applicant paid a dollar in the way of initiation fees. These receipts show "Local 1590" on their face and are signed by a collector. The issue before the Board is whether the documentary evidence of membership submitted herein indicates that the signatories thereto have expressed a desire to be "members" of the applicant trade union for purposes of the count.

5. The Board has consistently ruled that evidence of membership in the international parent will not be used as evidence of membership in a local thereof. (See; The Beaver Foundation Ltd. case OLRB M.R. October 119671 652: McDonald’s Consolidated Limited case OLRB M.R. August 119691 634). The Board has also stated that applicants for certification must be most circumspect in the quality of the evidence of representation filed in support of its claim for bargaining rights. (See; The Journal Publishing Company of Ottawa, Limited case OLRB M.R. July [1974] 499 at p501; Le Droit Ltee case OLRB M.R. December 11970] 905). As result of the apparent carelessness of the representatives of the applicant in conducting its campaign the Board is placed in the difficult position of discerning on the face of the documentary evidence the intent of the applicant for membership in signing a membership card. We do not know whether it was the applicant Local 1590 or its parent International that was intended to be signified as his "exclusive" bargaining agent. There­fore. as a result we are not satisfied that the applicant Local represents as "members" employees in the appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of section 7(1) of the Act (See; The J. D. Carrier Shoe Co. Ltd. case OLRB April 11968] 54; The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto case OLRB M.R. September [1967] 5737).

7. When the Board in the case at hand raised with the applicant the matter of its membership evidence, the applicant advised the Board that it was aware of the Board's decision in Bernardin, supra, but argued that its evidence was materially different than the evidence before the Board in that case and left no doubt that the employees were knowingly applying for membership in the applicant. The applicant claimed that the Board had accepted the identical form of membership evidence, containing the same statement on the receipt as quoted in paragraph 5 above and bearing the employee's signatures after the statement in its application for certification with respect to Lyle West Electric Limited, [1978] OLRB Rep. Nov. 999. That decision does not reveal the form of the membership documents tendered, however, so does not assist the Board herein.

8. While the applicant's organizer has been careless in failing to complete, or have completed by the persons applying for membership, the application form so that it would show clearly whether the employee was joining the applicant or the I.B.E.W., we are satisfied from viewing together the application and related receipt that each employee knew that he was signifying the applicant to be his exclusive bargaining agent.

9. The Board also advised the applicant that it would be conducting a preliminary inquiry into the signatures on two sets of membership documents because the signatures thereon appeared to be different than the specimen signatures supplied by the respondent. That inquiry has been made and the Board is satisfied that the documents were signed by the persons for whom they were tendered.

10. Therefore, on the basis of all the evidence before it, the Board is satisfied that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit at the time the application was made, were members of the applicant on April 26, 1983, the terminal date fixed for this application and the date which the Board determines, under section 103(2)(j) of the Labour Relations Act, to be the time for the purpose of ascertaining membership under section 7(1) of the said Act.

11. A certificate will issue to the applicant.