[1984] OLRB Rep. February 168
2507-83-R D. & T. Association of Employees, Applicant, v. Bartlett Transport Ltd., Respondent
BEFORE: Kevin M. Burkett. Alternate Chairman, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and S.
Cooke.
APPEARANCES: William K. Ebert, Q. C. for the applicant; Kris Phillips for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 29, 1984
The name of the respondent is amended to read Bartlett Transport Ltd.
This is an application for certification.
The Registrar, in a letter dated February 3, 1984, advised the applicant that it must be prepared at the hearing scheduled in this matter to satisfy the Board in accordance with the Board's usual practice that its organization is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.
Mr. Real Poulin, a professional driver with the respondent company and one of the persons instrumental in bringing the applicant organization into being, was called to give evidence in support of its status as a trade union within the meaning of the Act. His evidence establishes that a constitution was adopted at a meeting on February 12, 1984 by those who had signed membership cards in the applicant organization. The constitution contains proper collective bargaining objectives and provides for the election of officers whose duties are set out and the payment of fees, dues and assessments. The membership evidence filed in support of the application was signed in November, 1983. The application was filed on February 1, 1984, some twelve days before the constitution was adopted. There is no evidence that those who had signed membership cards reaffirmed their membership following the adoption of the constitution.
Important rights and obligations flow from a granting of trade union status and, therefore, the Board is circumspect in making status determinations. In this case, the constitution was not adopted until after the application was filed so that the applicant was clearly not a trade union as of the date of filing. Furthermore, all of the membership evidence predates by at least two months the adoption of the constitution and there is no evidence that those who signed membership documents reaffirmed their membership in the applicant after the adoption of the constitution. Having regard to the foregoing, we are not satisfied as of the date of application that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, in the circumstances of this case where there is no evidence that there has been any reaffirmation of membership, we are not prepared to allow the applicant to amend the filing date of the application.
This application is hereby dismissed.