Service Employees Union, Local 210 v. University of Windsor
[1983] OLRB Rep. March 478
0985-82-R Service Employees Union, Local 210, Affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (AFL-CIO-C LC), Applicant, v. University of Windsor, Respondent
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and W. F. Rutherford.
APPEARANCES: Naomi Duguid, Beverly Brush and David Robert for the applicant; D. I. Wakely, Brian P. Smeenk, John R. Dempster, Paul V Cassano, and J. L. Wheeler for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 18, 1983
1This is an application for certification.
2The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.
3The parties were in dispute as to the description and composition of the unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining. In accordance with its usual practice, the Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to meet with the parties and inquire into the employee lists and the composition of the bargaining unit. After a series of such meetings, the parties arrived at an agreed statement of fact and partial agreement as to the bargaining unit description. On March 2 and 3, 1983, the Board held a hearing to entertain the parties' submissions on the matters remaining in dispute between them.
4The Board is unanimously of the view that the appropriate disposition of this case involves the taking of a representation vote, but we are equally concerned that such vote be taken quickly. A delay of even a few weeks could prejudice the applicant's rights. Accordingly, in order to expedite the matter, we have decided to render our decision with somewhat abbreviated reasons.
5What the applicant seeks in this case is a "part-time" "office and clerical" unit which corresponds with the full-time unit which it has represented for many years. The applicant argues that there is an established structure of full-time bargaining units at the University and that the part-time bargaining units should "mirror" these. The respondent asserts that the appropriate bargaining unit should be a "tag-end" unit comprising all unrepresented part-time employees, or alternatively, that it should be the "standard" "office, clerical and technical" unit which the Board typically finds appropriate in a university context. The respondent refers to the Board's frequently expressed concerns about fragmentation, and to a number of decisions involving universities in which the "standard" office, clerical and technical unit has been found to be appropriate.
6Section 6 of the Act gives the Board a very broad discretion to fashion bargaining units which are appropriate in the particular circumstances of each case; moreover, the Board need only determine an appropriate bargaining unit. The unit prescribed may not necessarily be the most appropriate unit or the unit which the Board has found appropriate in other cases. Of course, the "standard units" which the Board typically determines are important. They ensure some uniformity in collective bargaining across an industry and, as a practical matter, where a unit has proved appropriate and workable in similar contexts; it becomes a kind of norm to be considered in evaluating the circumstances of particular cases. The standard units inject an element of certainty into the certification process which assists the parties in planning their affairs. On the other hand, the Board cannot ignore the special circumstances of each case, and prominent among them is the existing bargaining unit configuration. Where the parties have fashioned their own bargaining structure and lived with it for many years, the Board is reluctant to disturb or depart from that structure simply because it might not be what we would have done in the first instance. And once the parties have established the configuration of full-time bargaining units, the Board will generally try to define part-time units which correspond to their full-time counterparts. Here, of course, the Board was persuaded in the first instance that office and clerical employees should be grouped in a bargaining unit separate from "technical" employees and, some years ago, issued certificates on that basis. It was only in later years that the Board changed its policy as collective bargaining in the university context became more common, and the Board acquired more insights into University collective bargaining.
7In the instant case, the parties have lived with the established full-time bargaining structure for many years and there is no evidence before us of serious collective bargaining difficulties which have resulted. No doubt the separation of office and clerical from "technical" employees is unusual, and results in one more full-time and part-time bargaining unit than if the Board applied the policy which later became "standard" in the years after this full-time unit was originally certified. However, we are not persuaded on the evidence before us that there are serious countervailing considerations which militate against "mirroring" the full-time and part-time bargaining structures. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the part-time office and clerical bargaining unit which the applicant seeks is a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining.
8The parties were in dispute as to the status of some twenty-three individuals who work in the University Kinetic Centre, and much of the material before the Board dealt with their duties and responsibilities. We have had some difficulty characterizing their situation — not least because ordinarily they might not be considered either "office and clerical" or "technical employees." However, as will be seen from an examination of the job titles which the parties agree fall into one group or another, there are a number of inconsistencies and anomalies. Thus, while the matter is not free from doubt, we are satisfied on the basis of the evidence before us that the students share a stronger affinity with the "technical employees" with whom they work directly and who in slow periods perform their job functions, than with the other office and clerical employees who would fall within the applicant's bargaining unit. Accordingly, we find that these 23 individuals should not be included in the office and clerical unit which we find