[1986] OLRB Rep. April 449
1269-85-R Canadian Paperworkers Union, Applicant, v. Faber-Castell Canada Limited, Respondent, v. Group of Employees, Objectors
BEFORE: Ian C. Springate, Alternate Chairman, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and P. J. O'Keeffe.
APPEARANCES: J. J. Nyman for the applicant; J. C. Murray for the respondent; Brian McKenny for the objectors.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 22, 1986
This is an application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant has applied to be certified as bargaining agent for employees of the respondent at 77 Brown's Line in Metropolitan Toronto. The respondent contends that the bargaining unit should be described in terms of all of its employees in Metropolitan Toronto, subject to certain specific exceptions. Such a bargaining unit would encompass not only employees at the respondent's plant on Brown's Line, but also employees at its plant at 1325 The Queensway. The two facilities are approximately three miles apart.
No evidence was led by the parties with respect to the matter of the appropriate bargaining unit. Rather, the applicant accepted as correct most of the written submissions relating to the relevant facts filed by the respondent. The applicant filed certain submissions of its own with respect to the relevant facts, some of which were accepted by the respondent. Both parties also filed submissions in the nature of argument relating to the conclusions the Board should reach on the basis of the agreed-to facts.
The respondent is engaged in the manufacture, packaging and distribution of writing instruments, particularly woodcase pencils, ballpoint pens and markers. Prior to October 1983 the respondent carried on both its manufacturing and packaging operations at its plant on The Queensway, while its executive offices as well as a finished goods warehouse were located at Brown's Line. Due to a shortage of space at The Queensway facility, in or about October 1983 the main packing operation was transferred to Brown's Line. In 1984 a new packing machine was installed at The Queensway, and since that time employees from Brown's Line have regularly been transferred on a temporary basis to The Queensway to operate the machine.
The respondent employs approximately 45 employees at its Queensway facility, most of whom are engaged in manufacturing. About 22 employees are employed in the packaging department at Brown's Line while six employees are employed in the warehouse area at the same location. Product is moved on a daily basis from The Queensway, where it is manufactured, to Brown's Line where it is packaged and stored. The respondent's intent is to find a suitable facility prior to the end of this year that will enable it to bring together at one location the functions now being performed at Brown's Line and The Queensway.
The respondent employs set-up mechanics at Brown's Line as well as two machinists who are based at The Queensway. In 1985 one of the machinists from The Queensway spent about 60 per cent of his time at Brown's Line training new set-up mechanics. This same machinist now spends about half his time at Brown's Line. The machinists travel from The Queensway to Brown's Line as necessary to do major repair work and the overhauling of machinery. The respondent's quality control employees are based at The Queensway and that 15 where they perform most of their work. However, at least once a week the quality control employees also work at Brown's Line.
As already noted, there is a packaging machine at The Queensway which is operated by employees from Brown's Line. Since January 1985, 25 employees have moved on a temporary basis from Brown's Line to The Queensway to work on this machine. The total amount of time worked by each of these employees varies between seven and 642 hours. Seven of the employees have worked in excess of 100 hours at The Queensway.
The respondent has a practice of posting job vacancies and encouraging employees who are interested to apply for the vacancies. A vacancy at one location is posted at both locations. Employees have moved from one location to another as a result of applications in response to such postings.
In 1982 the respondent laid off a number of employees. The respondent did so in order of reverse seniority, provided that those retained had, in its view, the skill and ability to do the available work. During the period of layoffs no senior employee from one location "bumped" a more junior employee at the other location. The respondent contends that it is not aware of any circumstances which would have enabled an employee to bump an employee at the other plant. The applicant also did not refer to any such situation. The respondent, on recalling employees, generally recalled them to the job at the plant from which they had been laid off. However, on at least one occasion, an employee laid off from Brown's Line was recalled to a job at The Queensway.
The conditions of employment, hours of work and fringe benefits are the same for employees at both locations. Jobs are graded by the respondent according to different levels of skill. Employees rated as being at the same grade level are paid the same, whether employed at The Queensway or Brown's Line. In that less skilled jobs are concentrated at Brown's Line, the Brown's Line employees on average tend to be lower paid than those at The Queensway, although there are some employees in the higher grade levels at both locations.
The respondent's senior executives are located at Brown's Line. However, the manufacturing manager, who is responsible for both manufacturing and packaging, is based at The Queensway. Below the manufacturing manager is the plant manager, who is also based at The Queensway. The plant manager is responsible for manufacturing work performed in the respondent's woodcase division and plastics division as well as the packaging division. Because employees in the three divisions are divided between the two locations, the plant manager visits both locations on a daily basis. Supervisors of employees in the three divisions all report directly to the plant manager. The respondent employs two receivers at The Queensway to receive raw materials, primarily to be used in its manufacturing operations, as well as three receivers at Brown's Line who receive material to be used in the packaging process. The receivers at both locations are supervised by the same individual, who is based at The Queensway.
All potential new employees are "screened" at The Queensway and then sent to the appropriate supervisor who decides who will be hired. As already noted, all employees have the same conditions of employment. The respondent has a central payroll and personnel function.
Employees at both locations are jointly involved in social activities sponsored by the respondent, including an annual Christmas party, bowling league and two company baseball teams.
Where an employer carries on business at more than one location within a municipality, the Board's general practice is to describe separate bargaining units for employees at each location. The Board will depart from this general practice if the operations are integrated and the employees share a sufficient community of interest. In assessing when to depart from its general practice, the Board has regard to the considerations set out in the Usarco Limited case, [19671 OLRB Rep. Sept. 526, namely:
(a) community of interest of employees:
nature of work performed
conditions of employment
skills of employees
administration
geographic circumstances
functional coherence and interdependence
(b) centralization of managerial authority
(c) economic factors (d) source of work.
- In the instant case, the operations at Brown's Line and The Queensway are clearly integrated. Product manufactured at The Queensway is packaged and stored at Brown's Line. Most of the community of interest criteria enunciated in the Usarco case tend to favour grouping employees at Brown's Line and The Queensway into a single bargaining unit. While it is true that most of the employees at the two locations do not perform the same work, that is because they are involved in different aspects of the production of the same final products. The main consideration that mitigates against grouping the employees at the two locations into a single bargaining unit is the fact that the two locations are three miles apart. Notwithstanding this geographic separation, however, there has been ongoing movement of
employees between the two locations. This movement takes the form of employees from Brown's Line going to operate a packing machine at The Queensway, mechanics and quality control employees regularly working at both locations, and employees from one location successfully bidding for jobs at the other location. Particularly given this movement of employees between the two locations we are led to the conclusion that there is a strong community of interest between the employees at The Queensway and Brown's Line, and that this community of interest favours grouping the employees at the two locations into a single bargaining unit.
The Board is mindful of the need to ensure that a multi-location bargaining unit not significantly impede employee access to collective bargaining. See: Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, [1977] OLRB Rep. June 330. In this case, the applicant has only organized employees at Brown's Line. However, given the relatively small number of total employees involved, and the strong community of interest among the employees, we do not consider that a broader unit would significantly impede employee access to collective bargaining. See: Murray C. Bulger and Associates Limited, [1985] OLRB Rep. March 458.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Board is satisfied that the appropriate bargaining unit is one described in terms of all employees of the respondent in Metropolitan Toronto, subject to the appropriate exclusions. Given the total number of employees who would come within such a bargaining unit, and the membership evidence filed by the applicant, it is clear that the applicant's membership evidence relates to fewer than 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit. The application is accordingly dismissed.