Food and Service Workers of Canada v. Bond Place Hotel

[1983] OLRB Rep. February 202

0461-82-R Food and Service Workers of Canada, Applicant, v. Bond Place Hotel, Respondent, v. Group of Employees, Objectors

BEFORE: Ian Springate, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and B. L. Armstrong.

APPEARANCES: M. Cornish, W Iler and others for the applicant; M. Contini and S. Pustil for the respondent; R. Stevenson, C. Tavares and others for the objectors.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 3, 1983

1. This is an application for certification in which the Board issued an earlier decision on August 19, 1982.

2. In its decision of August 19, 1982 the Board determined that two units of the respondent's employees were appropriate for collective bargaining namely a ''full—time and a "part-time" unit. The final composition of the units remained in doubt at the time of the earlier decision due to a claim on the part of the applicant that two union members, namely Mr. Scott Dowdell and Miss N. Howes, had been unlawfully discharged by the respondent prior to the application date. The respondent has now acknowledged that it did in fact discharge both of these individuals contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. Having regard to the terms of section 1(2) of the Act, both of these individuals are to be considered as having been bargaining unit employees on the date of the filing of the application. This being the case, and having regard to all of the material before us, we are satisfied that as of the application date there were 77 employees in the "full-time" bargaining unit, of whom 43 were union members on the terminal date, the date already set as the time for ascertaining membership under section 7(1) of the Act. We are further satisfied that there were 26 employees in the part-time bargaining unit of whom 12 were union members.

3. Having regard to the numbers involved, it is apparent that for the applicant to be certified with respect to the part-time bargaining unit in accordance with the general certification procedures set forth in the Act, it would have to receive the support of a majority of bargaining unit employees casting ballots in a representation vote. The applicant, however, has requested that it be certified for the unit without a vote in accordance with the extraordinary certification provisions set forth in section 8 of the Act. With respect to the full-time bargaining unit, the applicant has filed membership evidence on behalf of more than the fifty-five per cent of the employees, and accordingly meets the minimum requirements under the Act for automatic certification. The applicant has requested that if for some reason it is not otherwise entitled to automatic certification with respect to the full-time unit, that the Board certify it pursuant to the provisions of section 8.

4. There were filed with the Board a number of statements in opposition to the application signed by a total of 43 employees, of whom seven were full-time employees who had earlier signed union cards. An additional two part-time employees who had earlier signed union cards also signed a statement. In instances where the Board is satisfied that sufficient numbers of union members have voluntarily signed statements indicating a "change of heart" with respect to trade union representation, the Board will generally exercise its discretion under section 7(2) of the Act to direct the taking of a representation vote notwithstanding that the union might otherwise be entitled to automatic certification. Given the applicant's membership position with respect to the full-time bargaining unit, it appeared during the course of these proceedings that the statements might well affect the applicant's right to automatic certification with respect to that unit. Before the Board will direct the taking of a representation vote on the basis of such statements, however, it seeks assurances that management has not played any role with respect to their origination or circulation, and further that the relevant circumstances would not cause reasonable employees to be concerned that management has played a role with respect to the documents, or that management is likely to become aware of which employees refused to sign them. In such circumstances, the Board is unlikely to consider the statements to be voluntary and will give them no weight.

5. Although evidence was led before the Board with respect to certain of the statements in opposition to the application, there were great gaps in the evidence relating to how some of them came into being, and as to the circumstances under which other statements were circulated. With respect to certain of the statements, no evidence at all was put before the Board. The evidence with respect to two statements which were not filed with the Board, establishes to our satisfaction that a managerial person played a role in the origination of one of them and that a different managerial person played a role in the circulation of the other. Given all of these circumstances, the Board ruled orally that with one exception, it was not satisfied that the statements reflected the voluntary wishes of the employees who signed them. The one exception related to Mr. Robert Stevenson, an employee in the full-time bargaining unit, who testified before the Board. On the basis of Mr. Stevenson's testimony, the Board was satisfied that for reasons of his own he had changed his mind about being represented by the applicant, and had written out and signed one of the statements. Although there were gaps in the evidence concerning what had subsequently happened to the document before it was filed with the Board, the evidence indicates that Mr. Stevenson gave it to another employee with the reasonable belief it would mailed to the Board without management's knowledge. Accepting that Mr. Stevenson voluntarily signed a statement leaves slightly less than fifty-five per cent of the employees in the full time unit who were union supporters.

6. The respondent has challenged the acceptability of all of the applicant's membership evidence, primarily on the basis of two separate incidents. The first incident involved two employees who signed union membership cards at the request of another employee, Elizabeth Rodrigues, and who each paid a dollar to Miss Rodrigues. The two were among the first employees to sign for the union. The main employee contact for the union at the respondent's hotel was Miss Noreen Howes. Miss Howes approached a large number of employees to get them to sign union cards, and she acted as the collector of a dollar with respect to their cards. Miss Howes also received cards and money from other employee collectors for forwarding to the union. When Miss Rodrigues gave the two cards in question along with one dollar for each card to Miss Howes, she advised Miss Howes that she was afraid that if she were to sign the two cards as collector, and management were to become aware of that fact, she might find herself "in trouble". In the result, Miss Howes signed the two cards as the collector. Miss Howes later turned the cards over to Miss Wendy Iler, a full-time representative of the applicant trade union who was responsible for co-ordinating the organizing campaign among the respondent's employees. Miss Iler questioned Miss Howes about these and other cards, and in particular asked who had been the actual collector. When Miss Howes explained what had transpired with respect to the two cards in question, Miss Iler advised her that it was the actual collector who had to sign the cards. Miss Howes then took the two cards back to Miss Rodrigues who put her initial next to Miss Howes' signature. When the cards were again reviewed by Miss Iler, she advised Miss Howes that they were still not acceptable. Miss Howes again returned to see Miss Rodrigues. This time a line was placed through Miss Howes' signature, and Miss Rodrigues signed as the collector on both cards. A summary of these events was set forth on the Form 9 "Declaration Concerning Membership Documents" which was executed by Miss Iler and filed with the Board in support of the applicant's membership evidence.

7. The Form 9 is an important part of a union's filings in any certification application. Indeed, if a union fails to file a Form 9 (or Form 80 in the construction industry) the Board will not give any weight to the union's membership evidence. See, Pietrangelo Masonry [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 218. The importance of a Form 9 flows from the fact that membership evidence is but a form of written hearsay. Further, in the interests of protecting the identity of union supporters, the employer is not shown the cards and is not permitted to examine employees on the stand with respect to whether or not they signed a union card, and if so, whether the card correctly records what transpired. In consequence of these considerations, the Board requires that a responsi­ble union official conduct an inquiry into whether the union's cards were actually signed by the employees whose names appear on them, and whether the individuals signing as collectors in fact collected at least one dollar from each employee. Once this inquiry is complete, the union official is to make a declaration on Form 9 which states as follows:

"On the basis of my personal knowledge and inquiries that I have made, I state that the persons whose names appear on the receipts or other acknowledgements of the payment on account of dues or initiation fees are the persons who actually collected the moneys paid on account of dues or initiation fees and that each member, on whose behalf a receipt or an acknowledgement of payment is submitted has personally paid in money the amount shown thereon on his own behalf to the person whose names appears on his receipt or acknowledgment of payment as collector, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES: . .

If it subsequently turns out that no inquiry was made prior to the signing of the Form 9, or that the person signing the Form 9 was aware of some discrepancy in the union's cards but did not indicate it on the space provided, the Board may dismiss the application entirely on the basis that no weight can be given to the declaration on the Form 9. See, for example, Kitchener News Company Limited [1980] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1656. However, where an irregularity on a card is noted on the Form 9, the Board's general practice is to concern itself with the acceptability of the card in question, without also placing in doubt the acceptability of all of the other cards.

8. In the instant case, we are satisfied that Miss Iler took care to make the inquiry called for in the Form 9, and that this inquiry brought to light the irregularities with respect to the two cards in question. Miss Iler then took steps to have the irregularities corrected, and in addition noted the matter on the Form 9. In our view, the corrected cards constitute acceptable evidence of membership and in light of the manner in which Miss Iler dealt with the matter, we do not have cause to be concerned about the propriety of the remaining cards.

9. The second main incident being relied upon by the respondent in its challenge to the acceptability of the applicant's membership evidence relates to the circumstances surrounding the signing of a union card by an employee, Mr. Jose Vieira. Mr. Vieira's native language is Portuguese and he has almost no comprehension of the English language. Mr. Vieira cannot read either English or Portuguese. On May 24, 1982 Miss Howes, who was not very familiar with Mr. Vieira, approached him about the union. Miss Howes, in English, sought to discuss the union with Mr. Vieira and to obtain from him his name and telephone number so that he could later be contacted at home by a Portuguese speaking canvasser. While so engaged, Miss Howes held in her hands a union card and three leaflets in the Portuguese language. Mr. Viera listened to Miss Howe's comments in English and at one point nodded his head. He then looked over the Portuguese language leaflets. Following this, Mr. Vieira pulled out his wallet, and then pointed to both the union card which Miss Howes was holding and to his wallet. Miss Howes, unaware that Mr. Vieira had understood absolutely nothing of what she had said, and that he could not read Portuguese, concluded that he had understood her message and decided to sign a union card. Miss Howes then stated that Mr. Vieira would have to pay one dollar. Mr. Vieira, who understood the meaning of "one dollar" took a dollar out of his wallet, handed it to Miss Howes and then signed his name where Miss Howes indicated on the union card.

10. Although Miss Howes reasonably believed that Mr. Viera had decided to join the union, in fact Mr. Viera had misunderstood completely what was going on. He had absolutely no comprehension of what Miss Howes was saying to him or what was contained in the Portuguese language leaflets. Mr. Vieira did not, however, try to indicate this fact to Miss Howes. This may have been in part because he was reluctant to reveal that he understood no English, and could not read, even in Portuguese. Also, Mr. Vieira felt that he did understand what Miss Howes was talking about. Through an interpreter Mr. Vieira testified that he had assumed that the card Miss Howes was holding was for some type of lottery or sweepstakes, and that he had decided that he would like to participate in it. Accordingly, he pulled out his wallet, and when Miss Howes mentioned "one dollar", he took out that amount, paid it to her, and then signed the card.

11. The following day Mr. Vieira showed his "lottery ticket" to one of the respondent's staff who reads and speaks both English and Portuguese. At this point Mr. Vieira was advised that he had in fact signed a union card. The information about Mr. Vieira signing for the union on the understanding that he was purchasing a lottery ticket soon got back to Miss Howes. Miss Howes in turn explained what had happened to Miss Iler, the union representative. Miss Iler directed that Mr. Vieira's dollar be returned to him, and that a Portuguese speaking person again approach him about joining the union. Miss Iler kept in her possession the original card signed by Mr. Vieira.

12. On May 30, 1982 Mr. Vieira was approached by Miss Elizabeth Rodrigues, who speaks fluent Portuguese. Miss Rodrigues gave Mr. Vieira back his dollar and in Portuguese explained to him that it was the dollar which he had earlier given to Miss Howes. Miss Rodrigues then talked about the union with Mr. Vieira, and he indicated that he wanted to become a member. At that point, Mr. Vieira paid Miss Rodrigues a dollar, and signed a new card which Miss Rodrigues then signed as the collector. Mr. Vieira in his testimony stated that he signed this second card in order to join the union. This card was filed with the Board in support of the certification application. At the hearing, when the matter of Mr. Vieira's card was raised, the union also produced the earlier card signed by Mr. Vieira which Miss Howes had signed as the collector. The incident with respect to Mr. Vieira's card was not referred to on the Form 9. Miss Iler testified that she had not made any reference to Mr. Vieira's card on the Form 9 because the card which the union was relying on clearly met all of the conditions referred to on the printed part of the Form 9. It should be noted that the evidence indicates that no employee other than Mr. Vieira received a dollar back from the applicant.

13. Having regard to the circumstances before us, we are prepared to accept the card signed by Mr. Vieira following his discussion with Miss Rodrigues as valid evidence of membership in the applicant trade union. Further, there is nothing in the evidence concerning this episode which causes us to doubt the reliability of the remaining membership evidence filed by the union. We accept Miss Iler's testimony that she did not refer to the matter of Mr. Vieira's card on the Form 9 because the card filed with the Board was in accord with the requirements set out on the printed part of the form, as indeed it was.

14. As indicated above, the applicant is seeking to be certified pursuant to section

8 of the Act. Section 8 provides as follows:

"Where an employer or employers' organization contravenes this Act so that the true wishes of the employees of the employer or of a member of the employers' organization are not likely to be ascer­tained, and, in the opinion of the Board, a trade union has membership support adequate for the purposes of collective bar­gaining in a bargaining unit found by the Board pursuant to section 6 to be appropriate for collective bargaining, the Board may, on the application of the trade union, certify the trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in the bargaining unit."

15. In support of its request to be certified pursuant to section 8, the applicant relied on certain allegations also set forth in a series of complaints under section 89 of the Act. Pursuant to the procedure adopted by the Board to deal with both the section 89 complaints and the section 8 application at the same time, the applicant union went first in putting in its evidence. The respondent then commenced putting in its evidence. Part way through the respondent's case, counsel for the respondent indicated that the respondent was now prepared to concede that most of the applicant's allegations were in fact well founded. In particular, counsel acknowledged that in terminating three employees, namely: Miss Howes, Mr. Dowdell, and Miss Collette Granger, the respondent had acted on the basis of an anti-union motivation. Counsel for the respondent did not concede that the respondent had closed its laundry and contracted out its laundry operations due to an anti-union motivation as claimed by the applicant, but counsel did acknowledge that the decision to select Elizabeth Rodrigues as one of the employees to be laid off as a result of the closing had been motivated by her involvement with the union. The respondent's counsel took the position that another employee laid off as a result of the contracting-out of the laundry operations, namely, Miss Natalia Rego, had been properly laid off, but that when another employee who had been retained was forced to leave the hotel due to health problems, the respondent's failure to recall Miss Rego had been motivated in part by her support for the union.

16. In admitting that the respondent acted contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, counsel for the respondent stated that he would not agree that the evidence before the Board reflected what in fact had occurred. Counsel also stated that Mr. Kaufman, one of the respondent's owners, expressly denied that he had engaged in any wrongdoing. In determining whether or not violations of the Act should result in the certification of a trade union under section 8 of the Act, relevant considerations are the circumstances surrounding the violations, and their likely impact upon bargaining unit employees. In our view, while the respondent was free to concede that it had violated the Act, it was not open for it to simply say the evidence before the Board does not reflect the circumstances surrounding those violations. The respondent's concession of wrongdoing does not wipe out the evidence already put before the Board or deprive the applicant of the right to refer and rely on it. If the respondent was of the view that the evidence before the Board did not accurately reflect the nature of its wrongdoings, it was free to continue to put in evidence to establish that such was the case. This being so, we are led to conclude that the evidence before us does in fact reflect what actually occurred. In addition, we can give no weight to respondent counsel's statement that Mr. Kaufman denied having engaged in any wrongdoing. The evidence before us indicates that Mr. Kaufman did, in fact, engage in serious breaches of the Labour Relations Act and that he directed at least one other managerial person to do likewise. Mr. Kaufman did not come forward to under oath deny this evidence. Accordingly, we must conclude that he was involved in violations of the Act.

17. Before briefly reviewing the evidence relating to the respondent's wrongdo­ings, we would note that the evidence does not support certain of the applicant's allegations of wrongdoing against who managerial persons. In this regard, , we are satisfied that although the respondent did unlawfully law off Miss Rodrigues, the evidence does not support the union's contention that Mrs. Machado, the hotel's executive housekeeper, had sought to harass Miss Rodrigues by assigning her more difficult work. Rather, the evidence establishes that Mrs. Machado found herself with a number of staffing problems, and in order to cope with those problems she in good faith made certain staff adjustments, including adjustments to the "mix" of Miss Rodrigues' duties. We also do not accept the union's allegation that Mrs. Machado and Mr. Pustil, who was described as a part-owner of the Hotel, met with supervisory staff in a hotel room for the purpose of plotting actions against union supporters. The weight of the evidence suggests that while such a meeting was in fact held, the meeting dealt only with routine administrative matters.

18. As already indicated, the union's primary organizer at the respondent's hotel was Miss Noreen Howes. Miss Howes commenced working at the hotel in January of 1982 as a cashier/hostess, but was let go a few days later because the respondent was cutting down on the number of cashiers. Miss Howes was re-hired as a coffee shop waitress on February 10, 1982. By and large, Miss Howes proved to be a good waitress, and was generally assigned to one of the busier sections of the coffee shop. In March her work performance did slip for a time because of personal problems, but this situation was explained to management and she was kept on. Miss Howes' work performance was again back to normal by April, and indeed, on or about April 21st she was advised by Monica Testolin, the coffee shop supervisor, that she was doing a good job. Miss Howes began organizing for the applicant trade union on or about April 5, 1982. Miss Howes personally approached about 50 employees, either at work or at their homes, in an attempt to get them to sign union cards. It did not take long before Miss Howes' activities became common knowledge at the Hotel. Miss Howes did not act alone, but rather she recruited a number of other employees to assist her. Among those recruited were Elizabeth Rodrigues, a competent full-time employee in the housekeeping department, and Mr. Scott Dowdell, a full-time cook.

19. The evidence indicates that Mr. Dowdell was not a model employee. He both lacked experience as a cook, and tended to work very slowly. In the result, at times he failed to properly perform certain of his duties, and when things got busy other staff felt he was not "pulling his weight." Mr. Scott was discharged by the respondent on May 25, 1982, allegedly for being too slow, and showing a lack of motivation and experience. The respondent now concedes that Mr. Dowdell was discharged, in part, because of his activity on behalf of the applicant trade union.

20. On May 29, 1982 Miss Monica Testolin, the supervisor in the coffee shop, closely watched Miss Howes as she went about her duties. On a number of occasions Miss Testolin told Miss Howes that she had done things improperly. At about twelve noon, Mr. N. Karim, the Hotel's general manager, came into the coffee shop and had a brief discussion with Miss Testolin. About five minutes later, Miss Testolin advised Miss Howes that she was being terminated due to poor job performance. As already noted, the respondent now concedes that it discharged Miss Howes because of her support for the applicant trade union.

21. Because of his poor work record and his secondary role with the union, it is not at all clear that employees would have linked Mr. Dowdell's discharge to his union activity. The same, however, cannot be said with respect to Miss Howes' termination. In that Miss Howes was generally known to be the chief union organizer, and because she was basically a good worker, it would have been reasonable for employees to link her discharge to her union activity. The evidence indicates that this is precisely what happened, and that much discussion occurred among the employees concerning who the respondent had discharged Miss Howes as a result of her union activity.

22. On June 1, 1982, three days after Miss Howes had been discharged, Mr. Kaufman, one of the owners of the Hotel, was overheard telling Mrs. Machado, the Hotel's executive housekeeper, that they had gotten rid of the girl in the coffee shop (i.e. Miss Howes). Mr. Kaufman also directed Mr. Machado to find out who had signed for the union and to fire them one by one. To her credit, Mrs. Machado did not do so, although she was later involved in laying off two union supporters when expressly directed to do so by Mr. Kaufman. At about the same time, Mr. Kaufman gave directions that the housekeeping staff be denied certain existing privileges such as the receipt of free soup and toast on their breaks. These privileges, however, were reinstated shortly thereafter.

23. As already noted, Miss Howes was discharged on May 29, 1982. On June 5, 1982 Miss Collette Granger applied for a weekend waitressing position with the respondent, and was hired as Miss Howes' replacement. Miss Granger was in fact a part-time employee of the applicant trade union, and part of the reason for her seeking employment at the Bond Place was to "keep an eye" on developments. Miss Granger was a highly experienced and capable waitress. Indeed, the day after she was hired the supervisor in the coffee shop was overheard telling Mr. Karim, the general manager, that "the new waitress is super". Somehow, or other, the respondent came to learn of Miss Granger's connection with the applicant trade union, and on July 28, 1982 she was discharged, allegedly for poor work performance. The respondent now acknowledges that Miss Granger was discharged because of her connection with the applicant trade union.

24. The hearing into these proceedings commenced on or about June 25th, 1982. Miss Elizabeth Rodrigues attended at some of the hearings with representatives of the union. Although Miss Rodrigues had earlier done some campaigning on behalf of the applicant, the evidence establishes that the respondent first became aware of her support for the union when she attended at the hearings. On or about October 12, 1982, the respondent closed its laundry and sub-contracted out its laundry operations. As noted above, the respondent acknowledges that the Miss Rodrigues was selected as one of those to be laid off following the closing because of her support for the union. The respondent contends that at about the same time it properly laid off another union supporter, Miss Natalia Rego, but concedes that except for her support for the union she would shortly thereafter have been called back to work. Miss Rego was in attendance at a Ontario Labour Relations Board hearing with representatives of the union in August of 1982.

25. As the Board noted in the Ex-Cell-O Wildex, Canada case [1977] OLRB Rep. June 370, certification pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Act was designed as both a deterrent to illegal employer interference in union organizational campaigns, as well as a device to provide a meaningful and effective remedy in those cases where an employer's interference has operated to destroy the free selection process guaranteed by section 3 of the Act. As the wording of the section makes clear, certification under section 8 in circumstances such as those before us can only be granted if three conditions are satisfied, namely:

(i) The Act has been violated.

(ii) The true wishes of employees are not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

(iii) In the opinion of the Board, the applicant has membership support adequate for the purposes of collective bargaining.

26. The respondent acknowledges that it has breached the Act. Those breaches, involving as they did the discharge and lay-off of union supporters, would likely be viewed by other employees as a clear demonstration that any exercise of their own rights to join and participate in the lawful activities of the applicant trade union might also attract retaliation by the respondent. The resulting effect on employees is likely to be heightened by the fact that the respondent's unlawful activities spanned some five months in all, and continued even after the legality of its earlier conduct had been raised as an issue before the Board. Given these circumstances, we are of the view that the free wishes of employees were not now likely to be ascertained by way of a representation vote.

27. The applicant filed membership evidence with respect to more than 55 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit, although its support falls below 55 per cent when the single voluntary signature on a statement in opposition to the application is taken into account. With respect to the part-time unit, the applicant filed membership evidence with respect to slightly over forty-five per cent of the employees. In our view, the fact that the applicant has membership support in excess of fifty per cent in the full-time bargaining unit, gives it a stronger presence in the work place generally, such that employees in the part-time unit are likely to gain support from the full-time employees. See, Robin Hood Multi-Foods Inc. [1981] OLRB Rep. July 972. In all of these circumstances, the Board is of the opinion that the applicant has sufficient support in both bargaining units so as to enable it to engage in collective bargaining with the respondent. Accordingly, we view it as appropriate that the applicant be certified to represent the employees in both bargaining units pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Act.

28. The respondent is of the view that the Board erred during the course of the proceedings when it concluded that Mr. F. White should be considered as having been an employee in the full-time unit on the application date. So that there is no uncertainty in the matter, even if we were to accept as correct the respondent's position with respect to Mr. White, the Board would still be prepared to certify the applicant with respect to the full-time unit pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Act.

29. Certificates will now issue to the applicant with respect to the following two units of employees:

"FULL-TIME" UNIT:

All employees of the respondent in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto employed at the Bond Place Hotel, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office staff, front desk staff, switchboard operators, security personnel, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week, and students employed during vacation period.

"PART-TIME" UNIT:

All employees of the Respondent at the Bond Place Hotel in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office staff, front desk staff, switchboard operators and security personnel.

30. Because of the nature of the respondent's breaches of the Act, it is our view the issuance of certificates to the applicant will not be sufficient to place it in the same position that it would have been in if the respondent had not contravened the Act. Accordingly, we believe it appropriate for the Board to exercise its remedial jurisdic­tion under section 89 of the Act (the section 89 complaints having been heard at the same time as the section 8 matter) and seek to establish conditions that will enhance the legitimacy of both the applicant trade union and the collective bargaining process in the eyes of employees, as well as promote employee participation in the bargaining process. The Board therefore orders that the respondent:

(1) cease and desist from interfering with the selection of a trade union by its employees and discriminating against employees because of their support for a trade union;

(2) provide the applicant forthwith with a list of names and addresses of employees in each of the bargaining units, and keep the list updated on a monthly basis for one year or until the union has entered into a collective agreement (or collective agreements) with the respondent with respect of the bargaining units, whichever shall first occur;

(3) permit the applicant access to its hotel during working hours for the purpose of convening meetings to address employees in each of the bargaining units out of the presence of any member of management; the meetings shall be scheduled by the applicant so that each employee in each bargaining unit has an opportunity of attending one of them during his or her normal working hours; each meeting shall not exceed one and a half hours in length;

(4) provide the applicant for a period of one year from the date hereof, with reasonable access to any and all employee notice boards in its hotel for the posting of union notices, bulletins and other union business literature;

(5) post copies in the English, Italian and Portuguese languages of the attached notice marked "Appendix", after being duly signed by a management official, in conspicuous places in its hotel where they are likely to come to the attention of employees, and keep the notices posted for sixty consecutive working days; reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to ensure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; reasonable physical access to the premises shall be given by the respondent to a representative of the applicant so that the applicant can satisfy itself that this posting requirement is being complied with.

Appendix

The Labour Relations Act

NOTICE TO MPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board

WE HAVE POSTED THIS NOTICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER UP THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ROARS, ISSUED AFTER A SERIES OF HEARINGS ARISING OUT OP THE EFFORTS OF FOOD AND SERVICE WORKERS OP CANADA TO BECOME THE BARUGINING AGENT OF OUR EMPLOYEES. DURINS THE HEARINGS HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE VIOLATED THE ISBOUR RELATIONS ACT BY INTERFERINS WITH THE RISHTS OF OUR ERHOOTEES TO SELECT A BARGAINING AGENT OF THEIR CHOICE. IN PARTICULAR BY OISCHARSINS AND OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CERTAIN UNION SUPPORTERS, THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ROARS AGO ORDERED US TO INFORM OUR EMPLOYEES OP THEIR RIGHTS,

THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT GIVES ALL EMPLOYEES THESE RISHTS:

TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES;

TO FORM, JOIN AND PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF A TRADE ONIONS

TOACT TOSETHER FOR COLLECTIVE BARSAININA;

TO REFUSE TO DO ANY OR ALL OP THESE THINGS. IF THEY WISH;

WE ASSURE ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THESE RIOHYS;

WE WILL NOT DIOCHARUE OH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE ONION;

WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE ESERCISE OP THEIR RISHTS ORDER THE ACT;

WE WILL COMPLY WITH ALL DIRECTIONS OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ROARS;

WE WILL REINSTATE AND/OR COMPENSATE THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT WE DISCHARSED OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE UNION IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENTS REACHED BETHEEN US AND THE TRADE UNION OR. FAILING SUCH AGREEMENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS SET BY THE ONTARIO LABOUR⁰ELATIONS BOARD;

WE WILL PROVIDE THE ONION FORTHWITH WITH A LIST OF THE NAMES ANO ADOREUSES OF BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND KEEP THE LIOT UPDATED ON A MENTHLY BASIS FOR ONE YEAR SR UNTIL HE AND THE ONION HAVE ENTERED INTO A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT (OR COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS);

WE WILL PERMIT THEUNION ACCESS TO THE HOTEL DURING WORKINS HOURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENING MEETINAS TO ADDRESS BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES OUT OP THE PRESENCE OF ANY MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT, THE MEETINGS SHALL BE SCHEDULED BY.THE ONION SO THAT EACH BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEE HAS A REASONABLEOPPORTONITY OF ATTENDING ONE OF THEM DURING HIS OR HER WORKING HOURS. EACH MEETING SHALL. NOT EXCEED ONE AND A HALF HOURS IN .LENGTH;

WE WILL PROVISE THE UNION A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE HEREOF, WITH REASONABLE ACCESS TO ANY AND ALL EMPLOYEE NOTICE BOARDS IN THE HOTEL FOR THE POSTING OF UNION NOTICES, BULLETINS AND OTHER UNION BUSINESS LITERATURE;

WE WILL, UPON GIVEN.WRITTEN NOTICE TO BARGAIN BARUGIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE UNION AS THE DULY CERTIFIED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OFOUR EMPLOYEES IN BOTH A "FULL-TIME" AND A "PART-TIME BARGININ UNIT, AND WE WILL MAKE EVERY REASONABLE OFFORT TO MAKE A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT (OR CO.LECTIVU AUREERENTS).

BOND PLACE HOTEL

PER: — ______________________________________ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTUTIVE

This is an official notice of the Board and must not be removed or defaced.

This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive working days.

DATED THIS 3rd day of February 1983