[1986] OLRB Rep. May 624
2823-85-U Aluminium Brick and Glass Workers International Union AFL-CIO-CLC and its Local 295G, Complainant, v. Ford Glass Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Judge R. S. Abe/la, Chairman, and Board Members D. Patterson and F. W Murray.
APPEARANCES: James Hayes, Don Clifford, Max Staces and John MacKenzie for the complainant; Mark Contini, Mary Ellen Cummings, James Tiernay and Michael Kyne for the respondents.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 28, 1986
This is an application pursuant to section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the Respondent violated section 64 of that Act.
The complainant and respondent have had a collective bargaining relationship for over 20 years. In the existing collective agreement, reference is made to various benefits, all of which are contained in a Master Plan located at the respondent's head office in downtown Toronto. The union has repeatedly requested copies of this Master Plan containing the Plans, Policies and Documents dealing with all welfare benefits provided for by the collective agreement. The respondent refused to provide actual copies of the Plan, but told the union verbally and in writing that the union could review the Master Plan at the downtown office anytime it wanted. In addition, a pamphlet outlining in a summary way the benefits provided, was made available to the union. The company, in a letter to the union dated December 4, 1985, told the union that the request was denied based on past practice, on the fact that matters of administration were the responsibility of the Company and on the fact that "The Personnel Department is available in such circumstance to provide information or clarification on any question raised with regard to specific details of benefits or coverage." In short, the Company feels it has given the union all the information it needs.
The union claims that this is an awkward, obstructive and inconvenient methodology, that questions are asked by union members at the plant relating to specific benefit provisions, and that to answer them the union is required to phone the respondent's personnel department. The result for the union is that it must wait anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months to get answers to employee's questions. Max Stacey, president of Local 295 said that he wants to be able to answer members' questions promptly, and that reviewing the Master Plan at the head office is of no assistance in spontaneously dealing with benefit issues that may arise.
The union asserts that the refusal by the company to provide them with a copy of the Master Plan violates section 64 of the Labour Relations Act. Section 64 states:
No employer or employers' organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers' organization shall participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union or contribute financial or other support to a trade union, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of his freedom to express his views so long as he does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.
The company asserts that there has never been a refusal by the company to reveal information and that all the union wants is more convenient access to it. It alleges that representational rights are in no way jeopardized, and that to fall within the ambit of section 64, the company activity must have a significant impact on protected union activity. (See Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69, [1983] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1411).
In our view, the company's refusal to provide a copy of the Master Plan to the union interferes with the "representation of employees by a trade union" within the meaning of section 64 of the Act. It goes beyond the simple matter of convenience. The union is charged with the responsibility fairly to represent its members and to safeguard their rights under the collective agreement pursuant to its legal obligations under section 68 of the Act. To do this adequately, it requires information and ought not to be put to the burden of travelling to downtown Toronto or calling the Personnel Department every time it needs an answer to a question arising out of the agreement. There is no doubt that the company has provided access to the information, but it is not meaningful access if it is not readily accessible to the union for the benefit of its members and for the proper discharge of its representational duties. The company has offered no countervailing business purpose for withholding a copy of the Master Plan, a copy it is prepared to show but not give to the union, and in balancing competing interest, therefore, the union's representational obligation prevails. The adverse impact on the union's representational rights of withholding physical possession of the information outweighs the company's interest in wishing not to release it.
At the conclusion of this case, the company raised the deferral issue. Initially, the union was proceeding to arbitration, relying on the Recognition clause in the Collective Agreement. Both a company and union nominee have been selected, but no chairman has yet been nominated. The company's position is that this is a matter of interpretation of the Collective Agreement, that any disclosure obligation is to be found in the agreement, and that the Board should defer to the arbitral process. The union's position is that rights contained in section 64 are overriding statutory rights and that the Board's jurisdiction ought not to be ousted in this case. It claims that the Board is the most appropriate tribunal to deal with an issue such as this, that it is not clear that under the Recognition Clause or the provisions of Appendix B dealing with "Welfare Benefits" that the relief claimed is available, and that in any event the Board ought to exercise its discretion in favour of retaining jurisdiction to enunciate rights under the Act.
It is not every case in which the Board will defer to arbitration and the principles to be applied in balancing the competing interests have been elsewhere articulated (See Valdi Inc., [1980] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1254; Sunworthy Wallcoverings, [1986] OLRB Rep. Jan. 164.) In this case, we are dealing with substantially more than the interpretative analysis of a collective agreement. What is alleged is a breach of the legislative centrepiece of the collective bargaining process in this province. The clarification of the parties' respective duties and entitlements under the Act is one of the legitimate functions of proceedings under section 89 of the Act. Where, as here, a novel issue arises as to the duty of informational disclosure during the subsistence of a collective agreement and whether section 64 requires such disclosure, it is appropriate for the Board to decline to defer to arbitration.
For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that section 64 obliges the company to provide the union with a copy of the Master Plan. The sole remedy sought by the complainant is a direction frotn the Board that the company provide this document to the union. In the circumstances, the Board finds that to be an appropriate remedy and so directs.