[1986] OLRB Rep. October 1335
0827-86-R The Employees of Fern Brand Waxes Ltd., Applicants, v. International Union of Allied Novelty and Production Workers, Local 905, Respondent, v. Fern Brand Waxes Limited, Intervener
BEFORE: Lita-Rose Betcherman, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members F. W. Murray and P. V. Grasso.
APPEARANCES: Shareef Azees and Harold Edwards for the applicants; Murray Gold and Vincent Knap for the respondent; no one appearing for the intervener.
DECISION OF LITA ROSE BETCHERMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBER F.
W. MURRAY; October 6, 1986
The name of the respondent is amended to read: "International Union of Allied, Novelty and Production Workers Local 905."
This is an application for a declaration terminating bargaining rights under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act. Under section 57(3) of the Act the Board is required to ascertain "the number of employees in the bargaining unit at the time the application was made and whether not less than 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit have voluntarily signified- in writing [by the terminal date that they no longer wish to be represented by the union." If not less than 45 per cent have signed a termination petition, following its normal practice the Board will order a representation vote. The terminal date for this application was June 19, 1986.
In support of the application, a timely petition witnessed and signed by 22 of the 23 employees in the bargaining unit was filed with the Board. The petition was headed "WE EMPLOYEES OF FERN BRAND DO NOT WANT THE UNION". Dated June 16, 1986, it bore 22 signatures of which 12 were first or last names only.
The respondent union challenges the petition on the ground that it does not meet the formal requirements of the Board's Rule 73. This rule states inter alia that the Board shall not accept a declaration terminating bargaining rights unless the evidence is in writing and signed by the employees. The union counsel argued that in order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 73, signatures must consist of the name in full. Citing Chaicraft v. Giles ([1948] 1 All E. R. 700), he claimed that a valid signature required a mark, initials, or the name in full. Counsel further argued that the incomplete signatures raised doubt that the employees knew that they were doing.
The petition's organizer, Shareef Azees, testified that the union had been inactive since the collective agreement was ratified two years earlier and that the members were unanimous in wanting to terminate its bargaining rights. He stated that when the agreement came up for renewal, his co-workers asked him to take the lead in ousting the union because of his facility in the English language. He said that he did not have a contact in the union so he went to the plant office to get the telephone number. Mr. Azees phoned the union and spoke to a Mr. Johnson. He then received a call from the Business Agent, Vince Knapp. It was agreed that a union meeting would be held in the plant lunch room.
This meeting took place on May 12, 1986. Mr. Knapp testified that he had intended to raise the matter of the contract renewal and to ask for recommendations. However, he acknowledged that the meeting centred on the members' dissatisfaction with the union and that he was given a piece of paper to that effect with the names of all those present.
Approximately two weeks later Mr. Azees called Mr. Knapp. On learning that the union would not step out, Mr. Azees prepared the petition. He stated that he telephoned the Board offices for information.
Mr. Azees testified that the names on the petition were obtained just prior to the beginning of the shift on June 16th. All employees signed except one employee who was absent that day. Mr. Azees stated that there was no management personnel in the vicinity and that the supervisor was on holidays. His testimony that all the employees were happy to sign was confirmed by two other petitioners Harold Edwards and Salvator Figlizzi. The latter testified that he explained the petition in Italian where necessary.
The union concedes that the events at the May 12th meeting suggest membership dissatisfaction with the union.
The Board finds on the evidence that there was clear and unequivocal opposition to the union on the part of the members. Indeed, the union did not seriously contest this. Moreover, there was no allegation of employer interference. This case clearly hinges on whether the incomplete signatures are acceptable for purposes of section 57(3) of the Act.
Having heard the evidence and argument, the Board is satisfied that the incomplete signatures should be accepted. Our reasoning is as follows: The signatures were duly witnessed by the three petitioners who testified to the surrounding circumstances. Their oral evidence substantiated that the signatories knew what they were signing. In the Board's view, the Chaicraft case is compatible with our conclusion. In Chalcraft the court stated, that, to be a completed signature, the name or mark should be "intended to represent the name." In the instant case, the Board has no doubt from the evidence adduced that the employees who signed the petition with their first or last name intended that form to represent their name. It should be noted that we are not dealing here with a sophisticated body of people but with recent immigrants unguided by counsel and unschooled in legal technicalities. Having determined that the petition was signed knowingly and voluntarily, we conclude that we should not be overly technical under the circumstances.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 57(3) of the Act, the Board will conduct a representation vote of the employees in the bargaining unit. Those eligible to vote are all employees of the Company, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, office and sales staff, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week and students employed during the school vacation periods on the date hereof who do not voluntarily terminate their employment or who are not discharged for cause between the date hereof and the date the vote is taken.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the respondent in their employment relations with the intervener.
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER P. V. GRASSO;
I dissent.
It is an established principle of Labour Relations Law in Ontario that the signatories of
a petition to terminate a collective agreement bears the onus of satisfying this Board by credible
evidence that the petition is a voluntary expression of employee wishes by giving detailed testimony of the circumstances in which the petition was prepared, circulated and signed.
One of the key concerns that I have in this case is the petition itself. Here we have a petition signed by 22 employees in the bargaining unit of which 12 employees signed either their first or last name only.
1 find on the evidence that the document submitted by the applicant in support of its application for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights was ambiguous and does not meet the requirements of Rule 73 of the Regulations.
The Board has long maintained that it will not accept a declaration terminating bargaining rights unless the evidence is in writing and signed by the employees.
I find it very difficult to accept first or last name only on a document of this type to be valid signatures.
I would accordingly dismiss the application without prejudice to the right of the applicant to file a new application.