Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1988] OLRB Rep. October 997
1489-84-R; 1490-84-R; 1491-84-R; 1492-84-R; 1549-84-R Teamsters Local Union No. 352, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Applicant v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Service Limited, operating as Airline Limousine, Respondent; Teamsters Local Union No. 352, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Applicant v. Aaroport Limousine Services Ltd. and McIntosh Limousine Services Ltd., Respondents; Teamsters Local Union No. 352, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Applicant v. Airlift Limousine Service Limited, Respondent; Teamsters Local Union No. 352, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Applicant v. Air Cab Limousine Services (1985) Ltd., Respondent v. Group of Employees, Objectors; Teamsters Local Union No. 352, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Applicant v. Airlift Limousine Service Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: R.O. MacDowell, Alternate Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and J. Sarra.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 14, 1988
Decision
1These are a series of certification applications filed in the fall of 1984. In each one, the union seeks to represent the drivers of the airline limousines that carry passengers to and from Toronto International airport.
2These cases have already given rise to lengthy Board proceedings and two Board decisions dated January 18, 1985, and March 9, 1988. The issues canvassed in those decisions need not be repeated here. It suffices to say that the companies raised a number of objections to the way in which the applications were framed and the right of their drivers/owner-operators to organize and bargain collectively under the Labour Relations Act. For the most part, after many days of hearing, those positions were rejected by the Board.
3By letters dated August 31, 1988 and September 12, 1988 the union seeks to withdraw these certification applications. Its expressed intent is to file new ones pursuant to section 9 of the Act, so that the present complement of drivers/owner-operators can signify, by secret ballot, whether or not they wish to be represented by the union in their relationship with the companies. The Board circulated those letters to counsel for the respondents for his comments. His written submissions were received on October 11, 1988.
4The respondents take the position that these certification applications should all be dismissed, and, further, that, pursuant to section 103(2)(i) of the Act, the employees and the trade union should be prohibited from making any new application for a period of 10 months. The employers cite, inter alia: the length of these proceedings, their complexity, the fact that the union may have gained some knowledge about the identity of the employees from the proceedings to date, the interest expressed in these matters by the media and others, what appears to be a renewed effort by the union to revive or establish its support among the existing pool of drivers/owner-operators, and the presence of certain outstanding unfair labour practice complaints filed in connection with the union's latest effort to solicit support, and, involving what, in its submission, is illegal employer interference.
5We have carefully considered the employers' submissions but accept them only in part. We agree that the current applications should be dismissed. We do not agree that we should go further than that, or impose any bar on a new application by the union and its supporters.
6Section 103(2)(i) is not a penal provision, and certainly should not be applied in circumstances where the applicant trade union's legal position (however long it took to establish) was ultimately vindicated. We acknowledge the employers' concerns about the uncertainty surrounding their employer-employee relations, and the other matters raised in counsel's written representation; however, those concerns are matched, in equal measure, by the concerns of the union and its supporters who want only an authoritative determination as to whether a majority of the drivers/owner-operators want to engage in collective bargaining - a right guaranteed to them by section 3 of the Act and confirmed by the Board's decision in March 1988. On balance therefore, we are persuaded that no bar should be imposed. Any pre-hearing vote applications which the union may wish to file will be processed in accordance with the Board's usual practice. Similarly, unfair labour practice allegations will be dealt with in accordance with the Board's established procedure under section 89 of the Act and the Rules.
7Having regard to the foregoing, these applications for certification are all dismissed, but without the imposition of a bar to such further application(s) as the union may wish to make.