Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1987] OLRB Rep. January 12
0923-80-R United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175, Applicant, v. Ault Foods Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: R. 0. MacDowell, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members David Patterson and Judith Rundle.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 22, 1987
On December 29, 1986, the Minister of Labour received a letter from the Personnel and Industrial Relations Manager of Catelli Inc., to which was attached a joint application requesting a change of the name on an Ontario Labour Relations Board certificate issued on September 8, 1980. That certificate affirmed the union's bargaining rights for a unit of employees then working for Ault Foods Limited, "Catelli Division", at its warehouse operation in Brampton, Ontario. It was said that on May 24, 1986, the employer's corporate name had been changed from Ault Foods Limited, to Catelli Inc. The parties requested the Minister to amend the certificate accordingly. The Minister referred the matter to this Board, and we shall treat it as a request made pursuant to section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act to amend the certificate granted on September 8, 1980; however, for the reasons set out below, it is our opinion, that the request for reconsideration is without merit and (on the basis of the material before us) unnecessary.
A Board certificate defines the initial scope of the union's bargaining rights, requires the employer to recognize the union for that bargaining unit, and gives the union a 'licence' to commence negotiations. However, once those negotiations have produced a collective agreement, it is that collective agreement (and in particular its "scope clause") which defines the parties and the extent of the union's bargaining rights. As the Board observed in Gilbarco [1971] OLRB Rep. March 155:
...The parties are free to amend, alter, extend or abridge the bargaining rights contained in the certificate. Where bargaining rights in a collective agreement are not as extensive as those contained in a certificate, then that is prima facie evidence of the abandonment of that portion of the bargaining rights contained in the certificate but not contained in the collective agreement. in effect~ the collective agreement supplants the rights given by the Board's certificate and the Board's certificate is spent once the collective agreement is signed. Or to put it another way, the best evidence of the bargaining rights extant are those contained in the collective agreement. In the same way as bargaining rights in a collective agreement supplant rights contained in a certificate, so too bargaining rights in subsequent collective agreements may supplant bargaining rights contained in prior collective agreements."
In this regard the Board was merely restating the views expressed by Laskin C.J.C. in Beverage Dispensers and Culinary Workers Union, Local 835, et al vs. Terra Nova Motor Inn Ltd. 74 CLLC ¶14,253 (S.C.C.) to the effect that 'once a collective agreement is negotiated the certificate has served its purpose and is, for all practical purposes, spent'. (See also Chapples Limited [1974] OLRB Rep. Dec.897.
We assume that following the issuance of the Board certificate six years ago the union and the employer negotiated one or more collective agreements. Those agreements were, and the current one continues to be the foundation of the union's bargaining rights. If the employer has merely changed its name, there is nothing to prevent the parties, on their own from amending their collective agreement to reflect the change, and it appears that both parties are quite content to do so. There has been no failure on the employer's part to recognize the union's bargaining rights; moreover, for the reasons already mentioned, amending a 1980 certificate would not, in itself, affect the collective bargaining status quo in 1987 or the terms of any collective agreement which may currently exist. Alternatively, if there has been more than a mere "change of name", and Catelli Inc. has acquired the business formerly carried on by Ault Foods Limited, then, pursuant to section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, "Catelli" would automatically be bound by the predecessor's collective agreement unless and until the Board otherwise declares. If there were any dispute about the scope of the bargaining rights which Catelli "inherited" (or if there were an intermingling of the employees of the two businesses) those matters could be canvassed and resolved by a successor rights application made pursuant to section 63.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board is of the view that it is neither necessary, desirable, or even useful to accede to the parties' request to reconsider and amend the above-mentioned certificate.