International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Consbec Inc., 1986 CanLII 1429

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Consbec Inc.

[1986] OLRB Rep. July 937

2992-85-R International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, Applicant, v. Consbec Inc., Respondent, v. Labourers' International Union of North America Ontario Provincial District Council and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 607, Interveners

BEFORE: Ian C. Springate, Alternate Chairman, and Board Members D. Patterson and I. M. Stamp.

APPEARANCES: Daniel A. Harris for the applicant; Daniel J. Sheilds for the respondent; C. M. Mitchell for the interveners.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 15, 1986

1This is an application for certification filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 (the "Operating Engineers Union") in which it sought to be certified to rep­resent certain employees of the respondent Consbec Inc. Labourers' International Union of North America Ontario Provincial District Council and Labourers' International Union of North Ameri­ca, Local 607 (the "Labourers Union") intervened to oppose the application. The Labourers Union contended that the membership evidence filed in support of the certification application by the Operating Engineers Union was obtained with employer support.

2The evidence establishes that on February 27, 1986, Mr. Patrick Little, the business manager of Labourers Union Local 607, talked to Mr. Rick Walker, a principal of the respondent, and asserted that the respondent was a related employer with a company for whom the Labourers Union held bargaining rights. Mr. Walker denied that this was the case and indicated that he had been discussing the terms of a possible collective agreement with the Operating Engineers Union, and had signed "a letter" with that union.

3The Operating Engineers Union filed membership evidence on behalf of five employ­ees. The Labourers Union called one of these employees, Mr. Jean Pelchat, as a witness. Mr. Pel­chat testified that early in March 1986, Mr. Walker approached him on the job site, advised him that someone from the Operating Engineers Union would be coming to sign union cards, and that it would be better for both Mr. Peichat and Mr. Walker if Mr. Pelchat signed a card. Mr. Pelchat further testified that two days later a representative of the Operating Engineers Union appeared on the job site to sign up employees. Mr. Peichat's evidence went unchallenged and uncontradict­ed.

4Given Mr. Walker's role in advising Mr. Pelchat of the forthcoming visit of a represent­ative of the Operating Engineers Union to the job site and in urging him to sign a union card, we are unable to accept the membership evidence filed on behalf of Mr. Peichat as expressing an inde­pendent voluntary decision on his part to join the Operating Engineers Union. Further, given all of the circumstances, including the fact that neither the respondent nor the Operating Engineers Union led evidence to show that Mr. Walker's approach to Mr. Pelchat was an isolated occur­rence, we believe it reasonable to conclude that Mr. Walker likely talked to other employees about signing membership cards for the Operating Engineers Union. Accordingly, we are unable to give weight to any of the membership evidence filed by the Operating Engineers Union.

5At a hearing into the application on June 19, 1986, the Board orally dismissed the appli­cation. That oral ruling is hereby affirmed.