McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC)

[1985] OLRB Rep. December 1750

2097-85-U McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd., Applicant, v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW­CLC) and Local 1967, William B. Patrick and Munir A. Khalid, Respondents

BEFORE: R. A. Furness, Vice-Chairman.

APPEARANCES: James B. Noonan, Richard J. Nixon and Brenda Kops for the applicant;

Daniel A. Harris, William B. Patrick, Ted Murphy and Munir A. Khalid for the respondents.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 23, 1985

1. The applicant filed an application for relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act on November 20, 1985. The application was heard by the Board on November 21, 1985, and on November 22, 1985, the Board issued the following decision:

I. The applicant has applied to the Board for relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act.

2. At the hearing the applicant requested leave to withdraw its request for relief as against the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC). Having regard to the stage at which this request was made, the Board dismisses the application for relief in so far as it pertains to the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement workers of America (UAW-CLC).

3. Having regard to the representations before it and for reasons to be given in writing, the Board declares that:

I International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC) Local 1967 has called or authorized or threatened to call or authorize an unlawful strike of the employees of McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd.

II William B. Patrick and Munir A. Khalid, as officers, officials or agents of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America(UAW-CLC) Local 1967 counselled or procured or supported or encouraged an unlawful strike or threatened an unlawful strike of the employees of McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd.

4. Having regard to the representations before it and for reasons to be given in writing, the Board makes the following directions:

A. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC) Local 1967 shall cease and desist from calling or authorizing or threatening to call or authorize an unlawful strike of employees of McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd.

B. William B. Patrick and Munir A. Khalid, as officers, officials or agents of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC) Local 1967 shall cease and desist from counselling or procuring or supporting or encouraging an unlawful strike or threatening an unlawful strike of the employees of McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd.

C. William B. Patrick and Munir A. Khalid, as officers, officials or agents of the International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC) Local 1967 and all other officers and representatives of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC) Local 1967 shall take such steps as necessary and consistent with their duties as employees of McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. to bring the declarations and directions of the Board contained in this decision to the attention of all employees of McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. in the bargaining unit.

D. Any person who has notice or knowledge of the declarations and directions of the Board contained in this decision shall cease and desist from doing or threatening to do an act that such person knows or ought to know that, as a probable and reasonable consequence of the act, another person will engage in an unlawful strike, and in particular, such person shall cease and desist from refusing to work for periods of five minutes in concert or in combination or in accordance with a common understanding.

E. McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. shall forthwith post copies of this decision upon receipt thereof at the work location and shall distribute copies of this decision to all of its employees.

The decision of the Board dated November 22, 1985, was registered in the Supreme Court of Ontario on November 22, 1985.

2. The reasons for the decision dated November 22, 1985, are now set forth. The following facts are set forth from the reply filed by the respondents and the oral representations made on behalf of the respondents. The applicant and the respondent International Union~ United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CLC) ("the union") and its Local 1967 ("Local 1967") are parties to a subsisting collective agreement. The union and Local 1967 are the bargaining agent for the employees of the applicant in Mississauga and those employees who are engaged on work parties outside Mississauga, save and except office staff, assistant foremen, those above the rank of assistant foreman, health centre staff, security staff and service engineers. William B. Patrick is the president of Local 1967. Munir A. Khalid is the plant chairman of Local 1967.

3. During the negotiations which led to the current and subsisting collective agreement, the applicant proposed that a new "super-classification" be created which would encompass a number of the current job classifications contained in the collective agreement. This proposal was rejected by the union and its Local 1967 and was not pursued further by the applicant. On or about October 15, 1985, Paul Holub, section manager, labour relations, for the applicant, notified Mr. Khalid by letter that the letter of that date constituted notice that the applicant was introducing a new job classification pursuant to article IX, section 9 of the 1983-1986 collective agreement. An occupational summary of the job classification and its grouping was attached to the letter. This new classification was the same as the classification which had been rejected by the union and Local 1967 in the negotiations. The applicant posted a competition for the new job classification at the same time as the delivery of the letter from Mr. Holub to Mr. Khalid.

4. Local 1967 informed the applicant that industrial harmony would be best served by the removal of the job posting. Local 1967 warned the applicant that the membership would respond adversely to the applicant's continued efforts to introduce the new job classification without consultation. An initial meeting between Jim Aldridge, the director of personnel of the applicant, Mr. Patrick and Mr. Khalid failed to produce either the conduct sought by the union and Local 1967 or lead to a meeting between Mr. Holub and the Canadian Director and the international vice-president of the union. In response to the applicant's conduct of introducing the new job classification, the union and Local 1967 have availed themselves of the appeal procedure under article IX, section 9 of the collective agreement and have also filed a policy grievance under the collective agreement against the action of the applicant. On the date of the hearing, some of the respondents filed a complaint under section 89 of the Act against the applicant. The complaint alleged violations of the Act by the applicant.

5. The executive of Local 1967 took steps to keep the membership informed of the steps which were being taken by the applicant. Five leaflets were circulated to the membership during the period from October 16 to November 15, 1985. A two-page leaflet dated October 16, 1985, referred to the problems with the super classification as viewed by Local 1967. The leaflet reviewed the history of the super classification in the context of the negotiations for the present collective agreement. The leaflet accused the applicant of wanting to eliminate jobs and pointed out that the applicant is producing more work in 1985 with 3,000 people than it did in 1980 with 4,700 people. The leaflet stated that the applicant knew this would be a strike issue if it tried to introduce this type of super classification and that the applicant had tried to slip it in now. The leaflet referred to an intention to fight for job classification and job protection and that Local 1967 had called in the union. The leaflet concluded with a statement that a meeting would be called with the applicant and that Local 1967 would be getting back to the employees. The leaflet dated October 18, referred to a meeting with the applicant and stated that the position of Local 1967 was to have the applicant cancel and remove the job posting. The leaflet criticized the applicant's attitude towards the workers and accused the applicant of stonewalling on grievances.

6. The leaflet dated November 1, from Local 1967 informed the employees that the applicant had made no move to reverse its position on the super classification. The leaflet stated that Local 1967 was appealing the position of the applicant under the terms of the collective agreement and were lodging a policy grievance against it. The leaflet referred to the potential for affecting seniority in the applicant's plans to implement a flow chart for the super classification. The leaflet referred to the unsatisfactory progress in a meeting with the applicant on October 22 and referred to "word has been circulating in the plant that work will be sent out" in certain areas of the applicant's operations without attributing the word to any source. The leaflet concluded with a statement that Local 1967 had called for a special meeting under the collective agreement and an accusation that the applicant was implementing a system just in time to avoid negotiations and was restructuring the whole work place without consultation.

7. The leaflet dated November 8, advised the employees that the applicant had posted a notice that eight employees were accepted on the super classification. The leaflet stated that "We have no choice but to respond by taking step by step measures to build pressure against the Company — pressure that will build until the Company pulls back". The leaflet went on to express concerns that the eight workers hired in the super classification would lose seniority because the classification was not covered by the collective agreement. The leaflet further stated that company profits were growing but that wages and benefits were falling behind and added that frustration and bitterness were bound to grow. The members were informed that the appeal and policy grievance have been lodged against the super classification but that was not enough. The leaflet continued that the company has shown that they will only change when pressure is applied. The leaflet concluded by stating:

We are taking some first steps in applying pressure.

I. There will be an organized legal demonstration today. We are asking the membership to participate on their lunch periods only. The purpose of this demonstration is the first step to let the Company know how we feel about this classification and to inform the public. It will be held on Airport Road outside Company property. (emphasis in leaflet)

2. There will be a special Membership Meeting on November 17, 1985 at the Skyline Hotel - Ballroom A, B & C at 10:00 am. when a full report will be given on the super classification and the follow-up action we will be taking. There will also be a report on jobs going out - re: Chem Mill, Rudder Assembly, Drop Hammer, etc. (The Company said on Wednesday - yes, jobs are going out - they may be coming back - but they are making no promises.)

We are looking to you for support. The Company has chosen a path of defiance and confrontation. There is only one way to respond - UNITY. UNITY now and UNITY at the next negotiations. We must be prepared.

8. The leaflet dated November 15, commenced by congratulating everyone for the great success shown at the demonstration on November 8. The leaflet stated that this was to protest the company s extreme violation and misinterpretation of the collective agreement by arbitrarily implementing a so-called new "job classification". It was added that everyone knew that the super classification could only lead to the elimination of many jobs if the company was successful in their bid to maintain it. This unfair action by the company, it was further stated, would eliminate seniority rights and job security for many workers. The leaflet concluded by stating:

"MCDONNEL DOUGLAS"BACKOFF!!!

The Company obviously felt that there would be no concern shown by themembership regarding this super classification. Together we proved them wrong again by being united against an unjust action that cannot be tolerated by the workers.

Last Friday was the first of many protests and the protests must continue in orderfor us to show that we are totally against such a blatant violation and unfair Labour Relation's practice.

Last Friday was successful. Let us continue this success by showing our full attendance at the Skyline Hotel on S U N D A Y, N 0 V E M B E R 1 7, 1 9 8 5 - 1 0. 00 A. M.

BE THERE UNITED

9. The special membership meeting was held at the Skyline Hotel on Sunday, November 17, 1985. Approximately 2,000 employees out of about 3,000 in the bargaining unit attended the special meeting. Many members at the special meeting expressed the desire to engage in a shutdown of the applicant's facilities. As a result of discussion, the employees in the bargaining unit who were present agreed that it would not be appropriate to engage in either a shutdown of the premises in whole or in part by walkout or concerted refusal to work overtime. As a result of a motion from the floor, it was determined that the members of the bargaining unit would engage in a protest calculated to demonstrate to the applicant the degree of their upset. The form of protest settled upon by the membership was agreed upon after considerable discussion and debate of the various avenues open to the membership to express their disgust with the applicant's conduct and to demonstrate that they had faith that the applicant would co-operate in having the matter heard in an expeditious fashion as contemplated in the collective agreement. Work stoppages of five minutes duration by employees of the applicant occurred on November 18, 1985.

10. The respondents requested that they be permitted to call evidence of facts which they believed would go to the discretion of the Board to grant the declarations sought by the applicant. The applicant opposed the request and argued that there were sufficient admissions in the reply so as to enable the Board to grant the declarations sought by the applicant. The Board made the following oral ruling at the hearing:

The applicant seeks a declaration under section 92 based upon the material before the Board without the calling of evidence. The respondents take the position that the Board, in the exercise of its discretion under section 92, ought to hear evidence going to the exercise of its discretion. The Board has a discretion in the exercise of its powers under section 92 and directs the respondents to state what their evidence would establish if it was produced before the Board by means of viva voce evidence.

11. The respondents informed the Board that the evidence would fall into two branches. Firstly, the evidence would put into context the problem of the super classification and its background and put it into the context of the work place. The applicant sought to negotiate for the present collective agreement and was unsuccessful on the issue of the super classification to the point of pushing the issue to the last round in the negotiations. The applicant has now unilaterally imposed the super classification. This is of great importance to the rank and file employees. The super classification was posted on October 15. On October 16 there was a wildcat strike in the plant when everyone sat down. The strike was halted by the leaders of Local 1967 and the applicant expressed its gratitude. The appeal and policy grievance procedures were then resorted to by the applicant and Local 1967. Notwithstanding Local 1967's attempt to discuss the issue, the applicant persisted in implementing the super classification. This provoked an increasingly hostile response from the employees. The applicant was not quick to get back to Local 1967 to arrange meetings to discuss the issue. Further, in response to an invitation by senior representatives of the union to meet and discuss the situation, it took some time to receive a response from the applicant. A meeting was arranged for November 21 at 1:00 p.m. and the applicant reported that it would be unable to meet due to the hearing of the instant application by the Board. This is indicative of the provocative stance of the applicant.

12. Secondly, the respondents did all that was reasonable and responsible to try and keep the lid on things. At the meeting on November 17, 2,000 out of 2,800 employees were in attendance and the result was a very minor and measured response. The desire of the rank and file employees was for a more unlawful response. The respondents did all that they could and no direction should issue against them because they acted as responsible leaders. Most of the employees participated in the work stoppage. A measure response would be to lift the super classification until the expedited arbitration was completed. While the applicant did not agree with the accuracy of these assertions, it informed the Board that it was prepared to make representations on the discretion of the Board on the basis of these assertions. The Board proceeded on this basis and entertained the representations of the parties on the exercise of its discretion under section 92.

13. It was the position of the respondents that if the five minute protest had not been agreed upon as a vehicle for expressing the utter dissatisfaction of the members of the bargaining unit, then they would not have been able to prevent the applicant's actions from resulting in a large, widespread and spontaneous work stoppage of indefinite duration. The respondents argued that the applicant had not suffered any limitation to its output or production. While the respondents agreed that the dispute with the applicant over the super classification would be referred to arbitration pursuant to section 45 of the Act, they relied upon the denial of the grievance by the applicant on November 19, 1985, and adopted the position that the applicant was the author of its own misfortune and had come before the Board without clean hands. It was also the position of the respondents that the scheduled protests did not, in the circumstances, amount to a "strike" within the meaning of the Act. The respondents argued that, in any event, the Board ought not to exercise its discretion in granting the relief sought since it was the continued intransigent behaviour of the applicant which has resulted in and provoked the reasonable response engaged in by the members of the bargaining unit.

14. The applicant argued that it had been established that a strike had occurred, that such a strike was to be repeated on each and every Monday and that the purpose of section 92 was to preserve the status quo in the work place until the underlying causes could be resolved as provided for under the collective agreement and under the Act. The applicant further argued that the conduct of the respondents constituted sufficient grounds for the declarations which it sought. It was the position of the applicant that it was acting lawfully and had made it clear to the respondents that it was prepared to submit the dispute over the super classification to the appeal and policy arbitration provisions of the collective agreement and was also prepared to meet the complaint under section 89 in a further proceeding before the Board.

15. Decisions of the Board were referred to on the issue of the exercise of the discretion of the Board on the facts of this application. Of the several authorities which were referred to, Northdown Drywall & Construction Limited, infra, and Canadian Elevator Manufacturers, infra, were on point and were strongly relied upon by the respondents. The respondents argued that the Board ought not to bail out the applicant from a situation that was of its own making and relied on the decision in Northdown Drywall & Construction Limited, [1972] OLRB Rep. June 666. The facts and the nature of the relief sought in Northdown are quite different from the instant application. In Northdown the Board was dealing with a complaint under section 81 [now section 91] and an issue arose with respect to the jurisdiction of the Board to entertain the complaint. The majority of the Board held that the Board did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and remarked that it would not bail out an employer who had created a situation involving two trade unions which had been brought about by the employer's flagrant disregard of inconsistent contractual arrangements with two trade unions. In the instant application, the request for relief is made under section 92 and arises not as a result of two inconsistent contractual arrangements, but rather arises over a difference in the interpretation of one collective agreement - the collective agreement between the applicant and the union and Local 1967. The respondents also relied upon the decision of the Board in Canadian Elevator Manufacturers, [1975] OLRB Rep. Nov. 868 and argued that, as in that case, the Board ought not to exercise its discretion and grant a cease and desist direction against the respondents. In Canadian Elevator Manufacturers applications had been filed under sections 82, 83 and 123, respectively [now sections 92, 93 and 135]. The applications arose out of costly industry shutdowns arising out of the 1972 negotiations for a collective agreement. Legislation in the form of the Elevator Contractor Unions Disputes Act, 1973, S.O., c. 1 required the International Union of Elevator Constructors, its locals in Ontario and five elevator companies to submit their differences to final and binding arbitration. The majority of the board of arbitration introduced a number of new provisions into the new collective agreement which was eventually decreed. The parties to the new collective agreement could not agree on the meaning to be attributed to many of the new provisions. Neither the employers nor the trade unions had filed grievances in response to their respective positions and therefore very little had been undertaken by either party in the form of rational problem-solving under the new collective agreement. At page 872-873 the Board stated:

16. Therefore, we are being asked either to provide relief to the applicant employers whose actions precipitating the dispute are, in our opinion, unsupported by a reasonably arguable interpretation of the contract or to assist a trade union who has refrained from pursuing the more rationale dispute-resolving procedures provided by the collective agreement. We decline both these opportunities and dismiss all three applications.

17. The Board's power under sections 82, 83 and 123 [now sections 92, 93 and 1351 are discretionary and ought to be exercised in accord with sound principles of industrial relations. While the Board has a public obligation to foster and maintain industrial peace, it cannot be said that this obligation can only be fulfilled by the reflex-like exercise of the Board's powers under these sections. Where, as in this case, an employer deliberately embarks upon a course of action that is unsupported by a reasonably arguable interpretation of the collective agreement, thereby primarily, and we might say baldly, resting its claim on the principle that an employee is obligated "to perform first and grieve later", this Board would not be serving the public by buttressing such recklessness with the full force of the laws of this Province. We of course approve the aforementioned arbitral principle and the Board must be wary in interpreting collective agreements even on a very limited basis. But the application of the arbitral principle in discipline cases is a qualitatively different function than using it to specifically enforce the demands of an employer under the sections in question. To issue such powerful relief in the peculiar circumstances of this case could well undermine the integrity of the Board's orders and discourage the self-restraint required in a complex industrial society. Very similar sentiments, quite appropriate to this case, were expressed by the Board in Northdown Drywall and Construction Limited [1972] OLRB Mthly. Rep. June 666 where the majority of that panel evidenced its concern for self-government in the following way:

…We recognize that this Board has an obligation to maintain industrial peace. We recognize that there is an obligation on the industry to assist in maintaining industrial peace by conducting it [sic] affairs in an orderly and careful manner so as to avoid the tensions and conflicts that are already rampant in the construction industry. There must be some form of self-help or policing by the industry. This Board is not to be viewed as a panacea for the ills of the construction industry. We do not sit as Solomon ever ready to divide the baby. We expect that the parties will exercise some self-restraint in their affairs and not expect this Board to be a forum which absolves them from excesses.

17. It must be emphasized that very similar reasons of policy cause us to dismiss the trade onion's application. We are of the opinion that the trade union's section 83 [now section 93] application is merely a strategic device designed to reinforce a self-help posture that also offends the admonition contained in Norrhdown Drywall and we decline to play a role in this “game". Thus, even if we were satisfied that the employers' actions constituted an unlawful lock-out, we would have refused the relief requested. However, we are of the opinion that the application fails on the statutory definition of a lock-out in that the employer has continued to offer employment to the employees affected - albeit on its terms.

18. For all of these reasons the matters are dismissed.

19. In Canadian Elevator Manufacturers, the Board concurred in the sentiments expressed in Northdown Drywall & Construction Limited, supra. The "plague on both of your houses" approach in both of these cases is based upon a finding by the Board that the party which sought the discretionary relief provided in a cease and desist direction ought to have behaved reasonably in entering into the contractual obligations and ought to have made an attempt to resolve the basis of the dispute by resorting to the grievance arbitration over the language of the collective agreement. In Canadian Elevator Manufacturers, the employer and the trade union had been guilty of brinkmanship in adopting positions and filing for relief in order to reinforce self-help postures. The root cause of the work stoppages lay within the binding interpretation of the provisions of the collective agreement and neither party to that collective agreement had taken any steps to resolve the meaning of the provisions which were in dispute. Where no attempt had been made to avoid or address the root cause of the work stoppage, the Board was not prepared to issue a cease and desist determination which would address only the symptoms and not the causes of the breakdown in their industrial relations where the parties had themselves taken no steps to solve the cause of the breakdown.

20. In the view of the Board, the approach adopted in Canadian Elevator Manufacturers and Northdown Drywall & Construction Limited rests upon the particular facts in each of those cases. In each of those cases the breakdown in the industrial relations which led to work stoppages had resulted from the acts of one or both parties in either recklessly entering into inconsistent contractual obligations, or in avoiding any attempt and failing to submit their differing interpretations of a new collective agreement to binding arbitration. In the instant case, neither of those situations are present. The collective agreement between the applicant and the union and Local 1967 was not filed before the Board. Therefore, the Board is not in a position as was done in Canadian Elevator Manufacturers to consider the provisions of the relevant collective agreement. Moreover, the parties in this case have taken two steps under the collective agreement, the appeal provisions and the expedited arbitration in order to try and resolve their differences. In addition, some of the respondents have filed a complaint under section 89 which alleges violations of the Labour Relations Act. All of these avenues have been pursued by the parties in order to find a solution to the present confrontation which arises over the interpretation of the collective agreement. The well-known arbitral principle of work now and grieve later is aptly applied in the circumstances of this application.

21. The Labour Relations Act provides an orderly process for obtaining and terminating bargaining rights. The Act places limitations on the conduct of employers, trade unions and employees and provides for relief where such conduct contravenes the provisions of the Act. The Act further provides for the resolution of differences in the interpretation of collective agreements by means of arbitration without stoppage of work. The Act also provides for the negotiation of collective agreements and for the commencement of lawful strikes and lawful lockouts once the employer and the trade union have fulfilled the requirements of the Act. Strikes and lockouts which occur during the term of a collective agreement are unlawful. See section 72. Sections 92, 93 and 135 provide for relief where it is alleged that an unlawful strike or an unlawful lockout is occurring. The Board has the authority to expedite the hearing of such complaints. See section 82 of the Board's Rules of Procedure. This was done in the instant application. The purpose of sections 92, 93 and 135 is to prevent resort to unlawful strikes and unlawful lockouts and to require the parties to resolve their differences within the framework of the Act.

22. In the case of an unlawful strike, the purpose of section 92 is to provide an employer with an avenue of redress and obviate the option of the employer of resorting to sanctions such as suspension or termination of employment or seeking damages against employees or trade unions by way of arbitration or in a proceeding before the Board. While an employer may be entitled to apply such sanctions, the application of such sanctions would exacerbate an already bad situation. Neither the commencement of an unlawful strike nor the reaction of sanctions by an employer preserve the status quo until the real problem can be dealt with. Indeed~ unlawful strikes and the use of sanctions create new problems between the parties. The expedited procedure adopted by the Board is an attempt to preserve the status quo so that the parties may avail themselves of lawful procedures and deal with the real problem rather than be faced with symptoms of their problem.

23. The parties agreed that any anticipated job loss was several months or quarters away rather than days or weeks. Moreover, they also agreed that the status quo, that is to say, the position that existed before the creation of the super classification, could be restored in the event that the respondents' views prevailed at either the appeal or the arbitration or appropriate relief was awarded under section 89. There was no dispute that there had not been any changes in wage rates and that only eight employees had been affected. Clearly the present situation is not irreversible.

24. The conduct of Mr. Patrick and Mr. Khalid, counsel conceded, had persuaded the employees to stop work for five minutes every Monday rather than engage in a complete work stoppage and a walkout. However, the conduct of Mr. Patrick and Mr. Khalid must also be examined prior to the work stoppage. The leaflets bear the names, among others, of both men. The leaflets are in a form which indicates endorsement, if not the authorship of both men. The pamphlets created an atmosphere of crisis and an untrue indication of an immediacy of the loss of jobs, were couched in emotive terms and prepared the way for the work stoppages which were complained of by promoting demonstrations during the lunch period. There is no doubt that as officers, officials or agents of Local 1967, the conduct of Mr. Patrick and Mr. Khalid was clearly within the scope of their authority to act on behalf of Local 1967. By virtue of section 99(2) the conduct of Mr. Patrick and Mr. Khalid is deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted by Local 1967.

25. The respondents maintained that the applicant had not suffered any loss of production due to the work stoppage. For this proposition to be true, it would mean that the employees who engaged in the work stoppage do not normally produce goods and services for the applicant. The Board rejects this proposition and finds that the applicant did sustain a limitation on its output. Section 1(l)(o) of the Act states:

"strike" includes a cessation of work, a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding, or a slow-down or other concerted activity on the part of employees designed to restrict or limit output.

The facts before the Board establish that the employees of the applicant ceased working on November 18, 1985, in combination or in concert or in accordance with a common understanding within the meaning of section 1(1)(o) and that similar stoppages were planned for successive Mondays. The Board is satisfied on the facts before it that Local 1967 called an authorized or threatened to call or authorize an unlawful strike of the employees of the applicant. The Board is further satisfied that Mr. Patrick and Mr. Khalid as officers, officials or agents of Local 1967 counselled or procured or supported or encouraged an unlawful strike of the employees of the applicant.

23. The Board appreciates the concern of employees over the perception that certain conduct by the applicant employer will cause a decrease in the number of employment opportunities and decrease job security. However, there is a dispute over whether this will, in fact, be the case and, as stated earlier, the status quo can be revived and maintained in the event that the position of the applicant is not sustained. It is for these reasons that the Board issued the cease and desist direction in this matter on November 22, 1985.