[1988] OLRB Rep. April 412
3159-87-U Syndicat des travailleurs de l'information du Droit, Complainant v. Le Droit, division de groupe Unimedia Inc., Respondent
BEFORE: Rosalie S. Abella, Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and C. A. Ballentine.
APPEARANCES: L. N. Gottheil, Pierre Lebel and Denis Belisle for the complainant; R. C. Filion, J. Beauvais, G. Cabana and R. Beaulieu for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 26, 1988
The union alleges on behalf of the newsroom and editorial staff at Le Droit that the company violated the duty to bargain in good faith contained in section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to sign an agreement whose terms both parties had accepted. The day after the hearing, on March 30, 1988, the Board issued a decision declaring that Le Droit's conduct violated the duty to bargain in good faith, directing it to sign the agreement as of February 16, 1988, and indicating that reasons would follow. The following are the reasons.
The essential facts are not in dispute. Le Droit had been negotiating for many months with 3 of its 5 bargaining units: the unit involved in this dispute, the newsroom and editorial staff (journalists); the production workers; and the office and clerical workers. All of these units had collective agreements which had expired on December 31, 1986.
The intervention of a Conciliation Officer was unsuccessful, and after the last meeting with this officer on January 20th, a "no board" report was expected for all three units. The "no board" reports were issued on February 3, 1988.
At the request of the union representing the journalists, a meeting was held with company representatives on January 26th to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. The final and most contentious issue was the union's request for a reduction in the 35 hour work week. Late that evening, Le Droit agreed to reduce the weekly hours to 34, and an agreement was thereby reached. The parties concluded the evening with a celebratory drink and dinner.
It was agreed between the parties that although all outstanding issues had been resolved, the signing would take place after each party had had an opportunity to review and approve the final text and four accompanying letters, all of which were to be prepared by the company. The union undertook to recommend acceptance of the agreement to its membership. The membership approved the agreement in principle on January 27th by a vote of 35 to 11.
On January 28th, Richard Beaulieu, the chief spokesperson for the company's negotiating team, learned that on December 8, 1987, the union had passed a resolution declaring that it would not sign an agreement unless the company reached an agreement with the other unions. The notion of a "common front" between the unions was not unknown to the company, but it was unaware that the philosophy had been implemented as a formal resolution. Beaulieu expressed his deep disappointment in the existence of the resolution to Pierre Lebel, the union President, as soon as he learned of it. Lebel assured Beaulieu that the resolution could easily be rescinded by the general membership once it had reviewed and approved the final text.
Beaulieu sent Lebel a draft agreement the next day, January 29th. Lebel reviewed the document with his committee on February 5th, and then called Beaulieu to arrange a meeting with the company so that final corrections could be made. A meeting was arranged for and held on February 9th. At this meeting, virtually all the terms and wording were finalized. Lebel told Beaulieu it would be presented to the general membership on February 11th, along with a resolution to have the December 8th resolution rescinded. Beaulieu stressed his wish of having the agreement signed before February 14th when the two other bargaining units had scheduled a meeting to take a strike vote. He further suggested that the signing be photographed. The union declined the offer of a photographer, but agreed to attempt to have the signing take place before February 14th.
At the union's general meeting on February 11th, the final text was presented to the membership. At this meeting, the members agreed to the text, set February 12th as the signing day, and rescinded the December 8th resolution. After this afternoon union meeting, Lebel met with Beaulieu and they agreed that the text would be signed the next day, February 12th, at 4:00 p.m.
On February 12th, at 3:45 p.m., Lebel went to see Beaulieu to confirm arrangements for the signing. Beaulieu advised him that he was preoccupied with the production and office workers' negotiations, and had not had time to prepare the four ancillary letters. When Lebel expressed his disappointment, Beaulieu concurred, particularly, he said, because he had hoped to tell the two other units about the existence of the agreement before their February 14th meeting. They both agreed that Lebel would prepare the four letters, and that the signing would take place at the first mutually convenient date, February 16th at 7:00 p.m. Lebel prepared the letters and Beaulieu agreed to their terms before February 16th.
At the end of the afternoon on February 16th, Lebel was told by the acting Editor-in-Chief that Beaulieu was in an emergency meeting with the two other units and could not meet to sign the agreement that evening. The next day, Lebel went to Beaulieu's office and asked why he would not sign the agreement. Beaulieu tried to reassure him, and said that he would try to have it signed by the end of the afternoon. They agreed to meet at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the possibility of having it signed that day.
Later that day, a company spokesperson told Lebel that the company was refusing to sign the agreement, attributing the decision to Gilbert LaCasse, the President and Publisher of Le Droit. The spokesperson said that the agreement would not be signed until the threatened strike by the two other bargaining units had been settled. At their February 14th meeting, these two units had voted to strike on February 20th.
Upon learning that the company would not sign, Lebel went to see Beaulieu, who confirmed that while the company was still in agreement with the wording of the text, it was withholding its signature because of the threatened strike. This was the first occasion on which Beaulieu confirmed that the company would not sign the agreement. On February 20th, the production and office workers went on strike, and the journalists received notification from the company that they would be laid off during the strike.
Gilbert LaCasse explained in evidence that he agreed to the January 26th settlement because he hoped that it would inspire the two other units to settle. Le Droit had suffered serious and increasing financial difficulties over the past four years which LaCasse, appointed in January, 1987, had hoped to reverse through, among other methods, negotiations with the unions. LaCasse candidly admitted that when it became obvious that the salutary effect of the settlement with the journalists had not materialized, he made the decision not to sign the agreement. The combination of the strike and the daunting loss of income a cessation of publication would generate, led LaCasse to conclude that there was no point in signing an agreement when the company was headed for "disaster".
Neither the deteriorated financial condition of Le Droit nor the possibility of a strike in the winter of 1988 were unknown to either party during these negotiations. Both factors figured prominently in the timing and terms of the January 26th agreement. Nor did the union's December 8th resolution, when disclosed to the company, divert the process or the company's willingness to pursue it to its signed conclusion. Both parties, knowing of this resolution, the precarious finances, and the possibility of a strike, had nonetheless concluded every term and word of an agreement and were anxious to have it signed at the earliest, logistically feasible moment. There was no change in circumstances, or unforeseen obstruction; rather, one of the potential scenarios surfaced with the strike vote, intensifying rather than exposing a critical situation. The bargain was made in the shadow of this pending crisis, but made nevertheless. Having been made, the section 15 duty to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement was violated by the company when it refused the agreement's execution because its hopes for a domino strategic effect on the two other units were thwarted. The Board's jurisprudence clearly indicates that where, in circumstances such as these, the parties have bargained for and agreed to all the terms of a collective agreement, it is a violation of section 15 for the company to resile from that agreement. (Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, [1983] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1722; Coulter Copper & Brass Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. May 519; Selinger Wood Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1688; Graphic Centre (Ontario) Inc., [1976] OLRB Rep. May 221; Municipality of Casimir, Jennings & Appleby, [1978] OLRB Rep. June 507; Fotomat Canada Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 145; Treco Machine & Tool Limited, [1982] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1954; Saville Food Products, Inc., [1986] OLRB Rep. Apr. 552; Sparton of Canada Limited, [1985] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1420.)
For all the above reasons, the Board concluded that the company had violated section
15, and directed that the company forthwith execute the agreement as of February 16th.