Canadian Textile & Chemical Union v. Brown Manufacturing Ltd.
Citation: [1988] OLRB Rep. July 660 File Nos.: 3156-87-U; 3367-87-U
Parties: Canadian Textile & Chemical Union, Complainant v. Brown Manufacturing Ltd., Respondent
Before: Patricia Hughes, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
Decision of the Board: July 5, 1988, as amended July 21, 1988
- The Board granted an adjournment in this matter for reasons given in its decision dated June 6, 1988, and directed that it be put down for hearing on July 18 and 19, 1988. Prior to those dates, the parties settled the matter pursuant to Minutes of Settlement ("the Settlement") dated June 17, 1988 which read as follows:
The parties agree to resolve the complaints as follows:
The Respondent agrees to reinstate DAVIN LEE to his position in the Quality Control Department, effective June 6, 1988. The Respondent further agrees to pay DAVIN LEE no less than $7.45 an hour and to ensure that all terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by DAVIN LEE as at March 7, 1988, are reinstated.
The Respondent agrees that in the event that lay-offs should become necessary in the Quality Control Department, DAVIN LEE will be the last employee laid off, and the first employee recalled from layoff. No employee shall be transferred or hired to work in the Quality Control Department until laid-off Quality Control employees have been given the opportunity of recall.
The Respondent agrees that ROBERT FRIGAULT is a laid-off employee with recall rights in the Quality Control Department and shall have recall rights for a period of 12 months from the date of this Agreement.
The Respondent agrees to provide the Complainant with reasonable access to bulletin boards where notices to employees are regularly posted. The Respondent will take reasonable steps to ensure that union notices posted on the bulletin boards are not altered, defaced or covered up by any other material. The Respondent will give a representative of the Complainant reasonable physical access to its premises so that it can satisfy itself that the Respondent's undertaking in this paragraph 4 is being complied with.
The Respondent will permit at least two representatives of the Complainant to hold a meeting on the Respondent's premises with all employees, during normal working hours and without loss of pay. Such meeting shall be no longer than one (1) hour in duration and shall be on a date established by mutual agreement but not later than Friday, July 29, 1988. The meeting will be conducted outside the presence of any member of management.
The parties agree to seek leave to have this agreement issued as an Order of the Board and to have the Board remain seized with respect to its implementation
In paragraph 6 of the Settlement, the parties request the Board to issue the agreement as an "Order of the Board" and to remain seized with respect to implementation. That wording does not make it clear what single "order", the specific word used in the Settlement, the parties desire the Board to make. The Board has indicated that it will not issue orders or declarations unless the parties have agreed to the issuance of (a) specific order(s) or declaration(s) and the Board has the jurisdiction to issue the order(s) or declaration(s) so requested: Elmont Construction Limited, f 1987] OLRB Rep. Feb. 209 and Consolidated Aluminium (Maritimes) Ltd., [1987] OLRB Rep. Mar. 350. We note that subsection 89(4) states that "where the Board is satisfied that an employer ... has acted contrary to [the Labour Relations] Act ["the Act"]' it may issue a remedy for such contravention. The Settlement neither states which "Order" the parties have agreed to request the Board to make nor the basis for issuing such "Order". Quite simply, we do not know what order to issue, even if we were satisfied we should issue any order.
In this regard, and in regard to the parties' request that the Board remain seized of the implementation of the Settlement, we refer the parties to subsection 89(7) of the Act which reads as follows:
Where the matter complained of has been settled, whether through the endeavours of the labour relations officer or otherwise, and the terms of the settlement have been put in writing and signed by the parties or their representatives, the settlement is binding upon the parties, the trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee who have agreed to the settlement and shall be complied with according to its terms, and a complaint that the trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee who has agreed to the settlement has not complied with the terms of the settlement shall be deemed to be a complaint under subsection (1).
Therefore, it is not necessary for the Board to remain seized and we do not do so. The appropriate way to enforce the Settlement is pursuant to subsection 89(7).
- No doubt because of the request that the Board remain seized, the parties have not indicated whether these complaints are to be withdrawn or terminated. Neither withdrawal nor termination would preclude either party's bringing a complaint pursuant to subsection 89(7) of the Act. Under the circumstances, unless otherwise requested by the parties, these complaints shall be terminated one year from the date hereof.