[1983] OLRB Rep. October 1670
1123-83-R The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Applicant, v. Imperial Clevite Canada Inc. Mechanical Products Division, Respondent,
v. Group of Employees, Objectors.
BEFORE: Ian C. Springate, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and H. Kobryn.
APPEARANCES: Stephen Krashinsky and Donald R. Bate for the applicant; M. Patrick Moran, Harley Koyl and Allen Grotke for the respondent; Philip B. Morrissey for the group of employees.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 3, 1983
This is an application for certification.
The applicant already represents a bargaining unit of the respondent's production employees. By way of this application the applicant is seeking to be certified to also represent the respondent's office, clerical and technical employees. The respondent is in agreement that the unit should encompass its office, clerical and technical staff. However, the group of objecting employees, all of whom are technical employees, contend that the respondent's fourteen or so technical employees have a separate community of interest from the office and clerical staff, and hence should not be included in the same bargaining unit.
The Board's long standing general practice has been to group technical employees in the same bargaining unit as office and clerical employees and not to include them in a separate bargaining unit. See, for example, Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited, [1966] OLRB Rep. Sept. 379, Automatic Electric (Canada) Limited [1969] OLRB Rep. Feb. 1162, and York University [1975] OLRB Rep. July 554. This practice is based upon the proposition that a separate unit of technical employees represents an undue fragmentation of bargaining units and is not conducive to stable collective bargaining. See: The Board of Education for the Borough of North York [1970] OLRB Rep. Dec. 915.
Notwithstanding the Board's general policy with respect to technical employees, counsel for the group of objectors contended that the facts in this case were unique and justified the Board excluding the technical employees from the bargaining unit. The respondent is a manufacturer of powder metal and elastomer components. According to counsel for the objectors, the technical employees analyze the raw material used in the production process, as well as the work in process. These and the various other tasks performed by the technical employees require that they operate very sophisticated equipment. According to counsel, the technical employees divide their time between the production floor and a laboratory or the engineering department, and do not spend their time with the office and clerical staff. All of the technical staff are graduates of either a university or community college course. It was counsel's position that the technical employees have greater responsibilities than do the office and clerical staff, and that they receive considerably higher rates of pay.
We are prepared to accept as correct the factual submissions of counsel for the objectors. We are not satisfied, however, that the Board should depart from its established practice and exclude the technical employees from the bargaining unit. Because of the very nature of their work, technical employees are frequently better educated and have a greater degree of responsibility than do office and clerical staff. They are also generally better paid. Our experience, however, is that the collective bargaining process is flexibile enough to allow these differences to be taken into account. Further, we do not believe that either the education levels or the duties of the respondent's technical employees are materially different from those in numerous other cases where technical employees have been included in the same bargaining unit as office and clerical employees. By way of example, in the 1966 Falconbridge Nickel case referred to above, the office, clerical and technical unit included individuals with titles such as: junior planning engineer, mine research engineer, mine underground geologist, and petrographer geologist.
Counsel for the objectors contended that the fact that most of the technical employees object to being included in the same bargaining unit as the office and clerical staff is an appropriate basis for excluding them from the unit. We do not agree. It is not at all uncommon during certification proceedings for an applicant trade union's support to be spread unevenly among different groups within the bargaining unit. However, the Board does not exclude from bargaining units those groups of employees whose support for the union is low. Equally, the Board will not permit a union to apply to be certified for only one group of employees within an appropriate unit because that is the only group that happens to support the union. See: York Central Hospital [1978] OLRB Rep. April 382. Instead, the Board's general practice is to first determine the appropriate bargaining unit and then assess the applicant trade union's support across the entire unit. We do not believe that a departure from this practice is warranted in the instant proceedings.
Although the respondent agrees with the applicant that the bargaining unit should include technical employees, at the hearing the respondent's counsel took the position that since most of the technical employees are opposed to being included in the unit, this is an appropriate case for the board to exercise its discretion under section 7(2) of the Act and direct the taking of a representation vote. We are unable to agree with this contention. As indicated below, the applicant has met the statutory requirements for automatic certification. The fact that its support is not drawn evenly from all parts of the bargaining unit is not, in our view, a basis for declining to certify the applicant outright. The relevant consideration is the level of its support in the bargaining unit as a whole.
[Portions of the decision dealing with a dispute as to employee status omitted]