The Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild, Local 87, Newspaper Guild v. Harlequin Enterprises Limited

[1987] OLRB Rep. February 226

1661-85-R The Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild, Local 87, Newspaper Guild, Applicant, v. Harlequin Enterprises Limited, Respondent

BEFORE: S. A. Tacon, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members G. O. Shamanski and J. Sarra.

APPEARANCES: C. M. Mitchell, G. Lem and J. Andrews for the applicant; Daniel J. Shields, Sherry Joosub and Bruce Annan for the respondent.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 3, 1987

1. This application for certification in respect of a unit of editorial employees of the res­pondent first came on for hearing on October 25, 1985. The application for certification was filed on October 4 and the terminal date fixed as October 17, 1985. The parties were in partial agree­ment with regard to the bargaining unit description. That is, there was no dispute that a unit com­posed of editorial employees was appropriate. This acceptance by both parties as to the suitability of a bargaining unit which is department-wide removes this application from the principles articu­lated in TV Guide Inc., [1986] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1451, with which this Board concurs.

2. Beyond the departmental basis for the bargaining unit, however, there is a dispute as to the appropriate geographic scope. It is useful at this point to briefly sketch the parties' positions. The applicant sought a virtual province-wide bargaining unit or, in the alternative, several bargain­ing units described in terms of Regional Municipalities or, in the further alternative, bargaining units in respect of each community newspaper operated by the respondent in its Metroland divi­sion. With respect to the last mentioned alternative, the parties agreed that certain newspapers would be regarded as a "single" community newspaper for bargaining unit description purposes. for example, the Etobicoke Guardian and the Lakeshore Advertiser were to be so "joined", as were the Georgetown Independent and The Acton Free Press. The applicant framed its geographic scope clause in terms of a main submission and two alternative arguments on the basis that it regarded all three configurations as "appropriate" with reference to the Board's jurisprudence, although the applicant's clear preference was for a province-wide unit. The respondent opposed the first two bargaining unit configurations proposed by the applicant but agreed that the second alternative, namely, by each community newspaper (or agreed "pairings") was appropriate. In the respondent's view, the employees did not share a community of interest across the larger units and, further, the respondent relied on the Board's usual practice in restricting bargaining units to municipal-wide bases. At the initial hearing, the employee objectors appeared and concurred with the respondent's position on this aspect of the bargaining unit description. To this, the applicant 4lisputed the asserted lack of community of interest amongst employees and contended that the Board has departed from municipal-wide units in appropriate cases.

3. In its decision dated October 29, 1985, the Board (differently constituted in part) appointed a Board officer to inquire into and report back on the community of interest between the employees for whom certification is sought in the various community newspapers affected by the application. Further, the Board notes that the parties were also in dispute as to the appropriate exclusions pursuant to section 1(3)b) of the Labour Relations Act other than "publisher" and "edi­tor" (described by different titles) which were agreed exclusions. Finally, the applicant sought an "all employees" unit and the respondent wished the usual exclusion of "part-time employees" and "students employed in the school vacation period". A Board Officer was appointed to inquire into these disputes as well.

4. These examinations consumed many months. The certification application came back on for hearing on September 12 and September 14, 1986. At that time, counsel for the applicant and the respondent made submissions regarding the Board Officer's report in respect of the geo­graphic scope of the bargaining unit description. In addition to the Board Officer's report, some seventy exhibits were tendered in evidence as well as an agreed statement of facts. Representatives the employee objectors did not appear at that hearing. This decision only deals with the geo­graphic configuration of the bargaining unit; the "part-time/student" question and the appropriate exclusions pursuant to section 1 (3)(b) remain.

5. The Board first sets out excerpts from the agreed statement of facts by way of an over­view of that segment of the respondent's operation with which this application deals. Beyond this general background, the Board refers to additional factual findings, as appropriate, in its analysis of the relevant issues. Counsel did address the issue of the credibility of the eight witnesses appear­ing at the examinations conducted by the Board Officer. In this regard, the Board has reviewed the transcripts of the examinations and weighed and assessed that testimony in the context of the wealth of documentary evidence in reaching its factual findings. However, the Board also notes that much of the factual context for this certification application was not in dispute although the parties obviously argued for different conclusions based on that evidence. Indeed, the Board com­mends counsel for the exchange of documentation and agreed statement of facts, pursuant to the Board's direction in the October 29,1985, decision.

6. Those excerpts are as follows (the numerical references are to the items as numbered in the agreed statement of facts):

7. Harlequin Enterprises Limited ("Harlequin") operates a Metroland Printing, Publishing and Distributing Division ("Metroland"). Harlequin is a subsidiary of Torstar Corporation ("Tors­tar"). Torstar's business is managed through two divisions: 1) newspaper and printing; and 2) book publishing and direct marketing. The book publishing and direct marketing division con­sists of Harlequin Books and Torstar Books. The newspaper and printing division consists of one daily newspaper, The Toronto Star, and nineteen community newspapers published by Met-roland.

8. Metroland was formed in July, 1981 by an amalgamation of Metrospan Printing and Publish­ing Limited, a Torstar subsidiary which published nine community newspapers, and Inland Pub­lishing Company Limited, acquired by Torstar in February, 1981 and which published thirteen papers at the time of acquisition. Metroland was amalgamated with Harlequin Enterprises in January of 1984. The combined distribution of the Metroland group of community newspaper as of December 31, 1984, was 590,000 copies per week. Exhibit 1 is Torstar's Annual Information Form.

9. The following community publications are published within the Metroland Division; publica­tion days for each publication are shown:

a) Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser (Wednesday)

b) The Aurora Banner (Wednesday)

c) The Brampton Guardian (Wednesday and Friday)

d) The Burlington Post (Wednesday and Saturday)

e) The Etobicoke Guardian - The Lakeshore Advertiser (Wednesday)

f) The Georgetown Independent - The Acton Free Press (Wednesday)

g) Markham Economist and Sun (Wednesday and Saturday)

h) The Milton Canadian Champion (Wednesday)

i) The Mississauga News (Wednesday and Friday)

j) The Newmarket Era (Wednesday and Saturday)

k) The Oakville Beaver (Wednesday and Friday)

I) Oshawa/Whitby This Week (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday)

m) Richmond Hill Liberal - Thornhill Liberal - Vaughan Liberal (Wednesday and Saturday)

n) The Scarborough Mirror (Wednesday)

o) The Stouffville Tribune (Wednesday)

p) Topic News Magazine (Sunday)

q) The Willowdale Mirror (Wednesday).

5. Each publication serves and is distributed within a separate community. Publications are not generally distributed outside of the individual community served.

6. Management of each publication establishes the editorial page opinion that will be adopted by the publication.

7. Harlequin holds the copyright for the material published by Metroland Publications.

8. All Metroland newspapers use an identical colour scheme on their banners, red letters on yellow background, which was adopted simultaneously by all of the publications. All but two of the newspapers state under the banners on the front page that they are "A Metroland Com­munity Newspaper". Each newspaper specifies in its masthead that it is one of the Metroland group of suburban newspapers, followed by a list of other Metroland papers.

9. The Board next sets out the arguments of counsel. Those representations consumed two ways of hearing and the Board does no more than relate those able and thorough arguments in a highly abbreviated form.

10. Counsel for the applicant asserted that the geographic scope of the appropriate bargain­ing unit was determined, as a matter of Board discretion, in light of several, sometimes competing, principles and approaches: is the unit sought "an" appropriate bargaining unit, as contrasted with the "most" appropriate unit, in the specific circumstances of each case; fragmentation and multipl­icity of bargaining units are to be avoided and comprehensive units preferred as far as possible but balanced against the consequences of a broadly based unit for the collective bargaining aspirations of employees, particularly in unorganized industries; the unit should be that which best serves the parties' interests in terms of a viable collective bargaining structure. Counsel submitted that, on the instant facts, the community of interest criteria established in Usarco Limited, [1967] OLRB Rep. Sept. 526 were, at least, substantially satisfied but, further, consideration of the community of interest amongst the employees in the proposed bargaining unit was only one factor involved in the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. Counsel acknowledged that there is a Board practice of defining bargaining units with reference to municipalities but asserted the Board has certified units covering single locations within a municipality, several but not all locations within a municipality and units encompassing more than a single municipality, and including regional municipalities. In looking at the appropriateness of broader based units, counsel argued the Board had regard for the extent of union support across the entire area concerned, that is, whether the s{upport was widespread or the particular configuration sought involved an element of "gerryman­4ering". Finally, on a general level, counsel submitted that the jurisprudence must be placed in the context of the bargaining units sought in each case and the respondent's rationale for opposing that unit. In support of these positions, counsel referred to numerous cases, including: The Hospital for Sick Children, [1985] OLRB Rep. Feb. 266; The Board of Education for the City of Toronto, [1970] OLRB Rep. July 430; Parnell Foods Limited, [1969] OLRB Rep. Apr. 38; Ontario Hydro, [1980] OLRB Rep. June 882; Stratford General Hospital, [1976] OLRB Rep. Sept. 459; The Cor­poration of the City of Thunder Bay, [1984] OLRB Rep. May 759; Niagara Regional Health Unit, [1975] OLRB Rep. Apr. 376; The Children's Aid Society of the District of Nipissing, [1976] OLRB Rep. Dec. 861; Board of Governors of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, [1984] OLRB Rep. Feb. 371; Bestview Holdings Limited, [1983] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1250; Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1974] 1 Can LRBR 403; Woodward Stores (Vancouver) Limited, [1975] 1 Can LRBR 114; National Trust, [1986] OLRB Rep. Feb. 250; Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, [1977] QLRB Rep. June 330; K Mart Canada Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1250; McDonald's Res­t9urants of Canada Limited, [1974] OLRB Rep. Oct. 755; Ponderosa Steak House (A Division of Foodex Systems Limited), [1975] OLRB Rep. Jan. 7; Industrial Welding Products Co., [1985] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1237; Kuehne & Na gel International Limited, [1985] OLRB Rep. May 693; lfaber-Castell Canada Limited, [1986] OLRB Rep. Apr. 449; Brock Milk Transport Limited, [1984] OLRB Rep. May 683; Murray G. Bulger and Associates Limited, [1985] OLRB Rep. Mar. 458; JFotomat Canada Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Apr. 306; Tip Top Tailors, [1979] OLRB Rep. May 445; Magna International Inc., [1981] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1260; York Steel Construction Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. Feb. 293; T.R.S. Food Services Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. Apr. 542; Canada $afeway Limited, [1972] OLRB Rep. Mar. 262; The Globe & Mail Limited, [1976] OLRB Rep. Nov. 662; Adams Furniture Co. Limited, [1975] OLRB Rep. June 491; The Board of Health of the York-Oshawa District Health Unit, [1969] OLRB Rep. June 340; Dynamic Closures Limited, [1983] OLRB Rep. Apr. 521.

11. Counsel for the applicant reviewed the evidence in detail. Essentially, it was asserted that the respondent was a corporate organization with a single concept of providing community news through individual community newspapers in and around Metropolitan Toronto. Counsel argued the corporation regarded itself as an integrated structure with a "hands on" president, sin­gle marketing strategy, head office control of the individual papers regarding budgets, common payroll, common corporate policies and benefits, regular meetings of publishers and of editors, and central sales office to deal with advertising accounts for the large chains. In this regard, coun­sel argued that there was evidence of transfers and promotions within the system, shared classified sections and editorial copy and a common salary grid. Thus, it was contended that the forms on "local" news content reflecting each particular community did not, and should not, outweigh the integrative forces. Counsel stressed that the most comprehensive bargaining unit in these circum­stances reflected the corporate structure and would not present labour relations difficulties but, rather, would rationalize collective bargaining in respect of editorial employees. Counsel also sub­mitted that bargaining units for editorial employees which were smaller in geographic scope would constitute fragmentation, particularly against the background of other possible bargaining units, including circulation employees, advertising employees, clerical employees and drivers. Finally, the Board notes that, while the bargaining unit was referred to as "virtually province-wide", the precise unit sought was described in terms of those regional municipalities (with one exception) where the respondent actually operates. The exception referred to the Township of West Guillim­bury; the applicant accepted the respondent's assertion that this reference, rather than the "re­gional municipality" (properly, "County") of Simcoe, was more appropriate given the geographic area of the County in light of the respondent's actual operations as at the date of the certification application.

12. Counsel for the respondent likewise reviewed the evidence and referred the Board to a number of authorities in support of its position that the appropriate unit was each community newspaper, with the exceptions already noted in paragraph 1 above. Those references include: Canadian Gypsum Company Limited, [1967] OLRB Rep. July 345; Usarco Limited, [1967] OLRB Rep. Sept. 526; Canadian Hanson & Van Winkle Company, Limited, [1967] OLRB Rep. Nov. 756; Wittich's Bread Limited, [1969] OLRB Rep. Jan. 1019; Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Can­ada Ltd., 70 CLLC ¶16,026; Adams Furniture Co. Limited, [1975] OLRB Rep. June 491; Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, [1977] OLRB Rep. June 330; York Steel Construction Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. Feb. 293; Weight Loss Inc., [1980] OLRB Rep. June 928; Brock Milk Transport Limited, [1984] OLRB Rep. May 683; Wix Corporation Limited, [1975] OLRB Rep. Aug. 637.

13. Counsel for the respondent agreed that the Board had wide discretion in determining the appropriate bargaining unit but stressed that, in exercising that discretion, the Board had developed a practice of certifying along municipal boundaries and single locations. Counsel acknowledged that the Board has departed from that practice but argued that there were no com­pelling reasons to do so in the instant case. It was asserted that the evidence demonstrated, in the context of the criteria in Usarco, supra, that the employees did not share a community of interest with other editorial employees outside each individual newspaper and, indeed, given the editorial freedom at the community paper level and the focus on the "local" news, there could be no broad community of interest. In connection with the Usarco criteria, counsel also stressed that the evi­dence of promotion within the corporate structure was not the sort of "transferability" referred to therein under "economic factor" or "functional coherence and interdependence". Without a com­mon interest, counsel contended that the larger units were inappropriate. In this regard, it was asserted that the "co-operative" efforts amongst newspapers in the past had failed, demonstrating that a larger unit was not feasible. Further, it was submitted those elements of "integration" emphasized by the applicant were either irrelevant, on the basis that these factors did not impact on editorial employees (e.g., common classified sections), or were cost efficient organizational Structures (e.g., common payroll, policies and benefit plan) which did not outweigh the diversity of the various papers or the fact that actual day to day control and decision-making was found at the local level. Counsel sought to distinguish those cases cited by the applicant on various grounds with particular reference to the community of interest criteria and the Board's practice of certifying municipal-wide or single location units. Finally, counsel argued that should a single unit be found appropriate, that unit should be described in terms of municipalities, not regional municipalities with the exception of the usual reference to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto) as sought by the applicant. It was asserted that the Board's practice warranted this result: National Grocers Company Limited, [19731 OLRB Rep. May 262., Wix Corporation, supra.

14. It was not disputed that the Board has a broad discretion in reaching its determination as to the appropriate bargaining unit. It is also appropriate to note that the question of the bargaining ~init definition has been often litigated before the Board. Indeed, as stated in The Hospital for Sick Children, supra:

"...a largely administrative and policy-laden determination has mushroomed in some cases into an elaborate, expensive, and time consuming process for deciding a relatively simple question: does the unit which the union seeks to represent encompass a group of employees with a suffi­ciently coherent community of interest that they can bargain together on a viable basis without at the same time causing serious labour relations problems for the employer".

In the instant case, as noted earlier, the certification application was filed on October 4, 1985, and first came before the Board on October 25. Examinations before a Board Officer, as directed in the Board decision of October 29, 1985, took several months. The matter was then set down for argument on September 12 and 24, 1986. This delay is all the more troubling in the instant circum­stances where the applicant has substantial support across the various community newspapers and as seeking certification on the broadest basis, a configuration which would greatly simplify the future collective bargaining relationship between the parties.

13. The Board is of the view that no useful purpose would be served through an exhaustive analysis of the jurisprudence. The case law has been thoroughly canvassed, in two relatively recent decisions in particular, The Hospital for Sick Children, supra, and National Trust, supra. Rather, it is appropriate to summarize those principles for bargaining unit determination which have guided the Board in exercising its discretion, in the context of the certification application now before the Board.

14. The case law recognizes that the Board must determine the appropriate bargaining unit, in accordance with section 6(1) of the Act, in the circumstances of each application but that more

than one unit may well be "appropriate" in respect of a single employer: The Board of Education for the City of Toronto, supra; Parnell Foods, supra; The Hospital for Sick Children, supra; National Trust, supra. In considering the various possible bargaining unit configurations, however, ~he Board must be sensitive to the impact of that determination on the access by employees to self­ organization: The Board of Education for the City of Toronto, supra; Tip Top Tailors, supra; Canada Trustco, supra. This sensitivity led the Board to acknowledge the appropriateness of bar­gaining units consisting of single plants within a municipality to facilitate collective bargaining in the retail industry in particular: K Mart Canada, supra; see also Canada Trustco, supra.

15. Further, the Board recognizes that a multiplicity of bargaining units generally has adverse consequences for the future bargaining relationship of the union and employer, such as, increasing the likelihood of strikes, increased complexity in administering several collective agree­ments, the triggering of jurisdictional disputes and employee "enclaves" coextensive with each bar­gaining unit: Board of Governors of Ryerson, supra; The Globe and Mail Limited, supra. Conversely, broader based units enhance administrative efficiency, employees' lateral mobility and industrial stability and provide a common framework for employment conditions: Insurance Cor­poration of British Columbia, supra; Ontario Hydro, supra. Where the more comprehensive unit would not operate to seriously impede or delay employee access to collective bargaining, the Board has favoured the broader grouping: Board of Governors of Ryerson, supra; Stratford Gen­eral Hospital, supra. In short, the Board prefers the most comprehensive unit that is viable for labour relations purposes in the context of a policy of facilitating employee access to collective bar­gaining: The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, supra.

16. To assist in the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board has devel­oped the concept of community of interest and the policy of municipal-wide units. Both matters require brief comment.

17. The concept of community of interest was a common sense acknowledgment that it gen­erally made no labour relations sense to "lump together" groups of employees whose interests were so disparate that a bargaining agent could not readily seek to respond to employees' concerns through collective bargaining. The notion of community of interest was itself elaborated and refined into a number of constituent elements, as set out in Usarco, supra, including the nature of the work performed, conditions of employment, skills of employees, administration, geographic circumstances and functional coherence and inter-dependence. In Usarco, the Board also looked to the centralization of managerial authority, the economic factor and source of work. It must be emphasized, though, that community of interest is not an "all or nothing" phenomenon. Rather, all employees of a single employer share a basic community of interest which increases for various sub-groups of those workers. The question is not "is there a community of interest amongst the employees for whom a union seeks certification?" but "is there a sufficient community of interest amongst those employees for whom certification is sought that the resulting unit is viable for col­lective bargaining purposes?". The Board~ in effect, assesses whether the bargaining unit sought is viable and viability reflects a sufficient community of interest nexus amongst the employees to sus­tain collective bargaining. Thus, community of interest is not an independent, mechanical exercise but, rather, goes to the issue of viability: Niagara Regional Health Unit, supra; Bestview Holdings, supra; Ponderosa Steak House, supra. It is the question of viability which is paramount and that may require bargaining units defined in terms of community of interest or some broader reference where sound labour relations policy reasons so require: The Children's Aid Society case, supra.

18. The Board's practice of describing the geographic scope of bargaining units in terms of the municipality in which an employer's operation is located must be understood as the Board's mechanism for expeditious resolution of that issue and an effort to strike a rough balance between stable bargaining structures and individual freedom of choice: K Mart Canada, supra; T.R.S. Food Services Limited, supra. The tradition of regarding municipal-wide units as appropriate has pro­vided considerable certainty in organizing and frequently resulted in the expeditious disposition of certification applications. The jurisprudence on bargaining unit scope, though, has not been static but has evolved. The single-branch unit represented one significant departure: K Mart, supra. Likewise, where collective bargaining viability may be achieved through a more comprehensive unit crossing municipal boundaries without unduly restricting or denying employee access to collec­tive bargaining, the Board has departed from its usual policy: The Board of Health of the York­ Oshawa District Health Unit, supra; The Globe and Mail Limited, supra. Generally, the jurispru­dence has developed to increase the organizing options available to unions within the context of the other factors bearing on the determination of appropriateness, including viability, fragmenta­tion, etc.: National Trust, supra.

19. Turning to the instant facts, the Board starts with consideration of the bargaining unit sought by the applicant to assess whether that configuration is appropriate in that the employees affected have a sufficient community of interest so that collective bargaining is viable and serious abour relations problems are not thereby created for the employer. The Board stresses that a find­ing that such a broad based unit is appropriate would not imply that other groupings were "inap­propriate" nor would that suggest the Board is about to jettison its existing policies with respect to geographic scope or employee groupings (e.g., office, clerical and technical units).

20. In the Board's view, there is much more than a "sufficient" community of interest to ground a viable collective bargaining structure. Quite simply, the employees have a strong community of interest. The evidence on the community of interest question was voluminous. The Board here refers only to a few examples. To the public, the community newspapers are identifiable as a group by virtue of their common colour scheme on their banners. The editorial page opin­ion is established at the local level but in the context of the corporate policy of providing "community" news and copyright is held by Harlequin. The respondent's administration of matters such as payroll and financial accountability is highly centralized. As well, there are common classified sections in some papers and a central office to solicit certain types of advertising for all papers. The employees are all subject to the same, detailed corporate policies with respect to benefits and working conditions (including mileages overtime, educational assistance, vacations, bereavement leave, discipline, life insurance, disability plans, dental care, etc.). The skills of the employees are similar although, of course, the content of each newspaper will reflect events in each community, in accordance with the corporate policy. Indeed, "copy" is shared between newspapers wherever appropriate, that is, when articles would be of interest to the readers of more than one paper. This sharing of copy, reporting assignments and "tips" between reporters at the various papers is not, nor would it be expected to be, extensive given the papers' focus on their respective communities. However, the pooling of resources and copy is not an isolated occurrence and stands in sharp con­trast to the corporate policy prohibiting freelance work on a conflict of interest basis to "competi­tors", defined as businesses which draw revenue from the Metroland market through printing, publishing or distribution. Of considerable importance, as well, is the fact that the promotional route for employees is the organization as a whole rather than simply the individual paper. The managerial personnel of the various community papers, for example, have by and large come up through the ranks at those or other papers within what is now the Metroland chain. The respon­4ent encourages in-house advancement through several vehicles, including, seminars, succession plans and the commonly administered Jackson-Smythe psychological assessment given to each new employee and filed centrally to make central administration aware of employee potential in the various local papers. The evidence revealed a significant number of employee transfers and promo­tions between the community newspapers within the respondent's organization. It is accurate to note that the various papers are spread across several regional municipalities. However, the dispa­rate geographic locations do not outweigh the already-noted factors of commonality and, more­over, are deceptive in themselves. Firstly, the employees from all the papers do meet at seminars and common social events and are kept "in touch" through the Metrognome, the respondent's in-house publication. Secondly, though, those employees are reporters. That is, their assignments require them to cover various "beats" (e.g. education, police, etc.) where they meet their counter­parts from other of the respondent's papers at municipal, regional and even provincial and national events of common interest. Thirdly, it should be noted that many of the papers are not geographi­cally distant from one another and all are clustered within Metropolitan Toronto and its environs, broadly speaking. In the Board's view, of all the evidence on community of interest before the 'Board, nothing of significance points toward a narrow geographic scope for the bargaining unit definition. In short, the Board is satisfied the unit sought shares a sufficient community of interest that collective bargaining is viable.

21. The Board must next assess whether that broad bargaining unit configuration would cre­ate labour relations difficulties for the employer. The unit sought is the most comprehensive in light of the respondent's operations and, thus, is most desirable for reasons of administrative effi­ciency, flexibility, employee mobility and continuation of the corporation's common framework for employment conditions. This is particularly so given that the parties have agreed to a unit of all "editorial" employees. There is already the potential for a number of other units, such as, advertis­ing department employees and circulation department employees. Given the parties' agreement and the traditional pattern of organization in newspapers, the Board is not prepared to reject a unit defined on a "departmental" basis in the present circumstances: see TV Guide, supra. The Board's long standing aversion to fragmentation, however, reinforces the focus on a unit, in this case, with as broad a geographic base as possible.

22. Employee access to collective bargaining would not be impeded by a finding in this case that the most comprehensive unit was "appropriate". This conclusion is not surprising given that it is the applicant which seeks the larger unit. However, in such circumstances, the Board must be sensitive to the pattern of distribution and level of employee support for the applicant to the extent that, if that support, while numerically sufficient for certification without a vote pursuant to section 7(2) of the Act, is so drastically skewed as to ride roughshod over significant employee groupings, the most comprehensive unit may not be appropriate. In any certification application, support for an applicant may be uneven. Where, however, an unusually broad unit is sought, that is, where the unit would depart from Board practice, the Board must be satisfied that the support is not so skewed as to raise concern that the applicant has tailored its proposed unit to sweep in employee groupings which do not support the applicant and could themselves constitute an appropriate bar­gaining unit. In National Trust, supra, the Board was prepared to "group" together in one certifi­cate up to the seven branches for which certification was sought provided that the applicant was certifiable (automatically or following a representation vote) at each of the branches to be so com­bined. The Board in National Trust was faced with an apparently irrational and arbitrary request by the applicant for certification in respect of 7 of the 37 branches of that respondent located within a single municipality. In that case, the applicant itself had pointed to the potential for ger­rymandering but emphasized that it had organized each of the seven branches and, thus, that aspect should not constitute an impediment to certifying the unit sought. The issue in National Trust, therefore, was essentially one of bargaining structure and the Board found the grouping of those branches appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the support for the applicant is sub­stantial across the various locations; there is no concern that the unit sought has been "gerryman­dered" by the applicant in any way. The Board is satisfied that the unit sought by the applicant should not be precluded on this basis.

23. The Board has found that there is sufficient community of interest so that the bargain­ing unit sought is viable and would not thereby occasion labour relations difficulties for the employer. Thus, it is appropriate in this case that the Board's "rough and ready" balancing of pol­icy considerations which has generally crystallized in bargaining units defined with reference to municipal boundaries should give way to the more comprehensive unit sought by the applicant. The Board finds that the geographic scope of the bargaining unit which is appropriate in the instant circumstances is "all editorial employees of the respondent in its Metroland Printing, Publishing and Distributing Division in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Regional Municipali­ties of Halton, Peel, York and Durham and the Township of West Guillimbury".

24. As noted earlier, the parties remain in dispute as to the appropriateness of the part-time/student exclusion in these circumstances and the appropriate managerial exclusions, apart from the parties' concurrence that "publisher" and "editor" (described by different titles) should not be included in the bargaining unit. This matter is referred to the Registrar with respect to the remaining issues.