Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 30 v. Rainscreen Metal Systems Incorporated, 1989 CanLII 3474

Ontario Labour Relations Board

[1989] OLRB Rep. May 482

2436-87-R; 2505-87-U Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 30, Applicant/Complainant v. Rainscreen Metal Systems Incorporated, Respondent.

BEFORE: Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair, and Board Members D. A. MacDonald and C. A. Ballentine.

APPEARANCES: Elizabeth Mitchell and Jim Moffatt for the applicant/complainant; Karen J. Weinstein and John Bierma for the respondent.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 10, 1989

1The Board has two matters before it. Board File No. 2436-87-R is an application for certification made pursuant to the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act by Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 30 ("Local 30") against Rainscreen Metal Systems Incorporated ("Rainscreen"). If necessary, Local 30 seeks relief under section 8 of the Act. Board File No. 2505-87-U is a complaint against Rainscreen under section 89 of the Act upon which Local 30 essentially relies to support its section 8 request.

2This application for certification was filed on December 3, 1987 and has been before two panels of the Board. The following paragraphs of an earlier decision of the present panel sets out a brief history of the proceedings involving these files:

2. These matters and others initially came on for hearing on February 8, 1988. before another panel of the Board. An application under section 63 and subsection 1(4) of the Act was with­drawn at that time and the parties involved in that application withdrew from the proceeding. Although a petition had been filed, no one appeared on behalf of the objecting employees at the hearing on February 8, and the panel hearing this matter determined it would give no weight to the petition. Given these developments, the proceeding continued with only the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 30 ("Local 30") as the applicant/complainant and Rainscreen Metal Systems Incorporated ('Rainscreen") as the respondent.

3. In its decision of February 16, 1988, the Board determined that the applicant is a trade union and an affiliated bargaining agent of a designated employee bargaining agency. The Board fur­ther found that the following bargaining unit constitutes a unit of employees of the Rainscreen appropriate for collective bargaining:

all journeymen and apprentice sheet metal workers in the employ of the respondent Rainscreen in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in the Province of Ontario and all journeymen and apprentice sheet metal workers in the employ of the respondent Rainscreen in all other sectors of the con­struction industry in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Regional Munici­palities of Peel and York, the Towns of Oakville and Halton Hills and that portion of the Town of Milton within the geographic Townships of Esquesing and Trafalgar, and the Towns of Ajax and Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham, save and except non-working foremen and persons above the rank of non-working foreman.

For purposes of clarity, the Board notes that employees working as sheeters, sheeters' assistants and material handlers are employees in the bargaining unit.

4. In its decision of February 16, 1988, the Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the list of employees in the bargaining unit and report back to the Board for the purpose of enabling the Board to determine whether eleven persons were employees of Rain-screen working in the bargaining unit on the application date. Pursuant to his appointment, the Board Officer met with the parties on May 24 and on June 3 and 7, 1988, and proceeded to examine ten persons. When the examination continued on June 8, 1988, the applicant called three witnesses and the respondent called one.

5. A copy of the Board Officer's Report (the "Report") was sent to each of the parties, together with a (Form 68) Notice of Report of Labour Relations Officer. Counsel for each party submit­ted written representations with respect to the conclusions the Board should reach in view of the Report and requested a hearing. On September 27 & 28, 1988, a hearing was conducted to entertain the representations of the parties regarding the Report. The parties were in agreement that it would be appropriate to resolve the issues raised in the Report before proceeding to address the remaining outstanding issues.

3The present panel entertained the parties' submissions at a hearing on September 28, 1988 concerning the persons challenged by Local 30. In its decision of November 3, 1988, the Board determined that Local 30 succeeded in only one of it original six challenges. Since one of the matters raised in Local 30's section 89 complaint concerns the lay-off of two employees two days prior to the application date, the Board noted in its decision that the final resolution of the list of employees depended on the outcome of the section 89 complaint.

4The hearing to determine the remaining outstanding issues required seven days over a four-month period. At the outset of the hearing, the Board announced the "count". It advised the parties that Local 30 had filed membership evidence on behalf of 10 employees, 8 of whose names corresponded with the sixteen employees on the employer's list of employees. The Board reiter­ated that the final resolution of the number of employees in the unit for purposes of the count, and accordingly, the final "count", had to await the outcome of Local 30's section 89 complaint.

5The Board heard all of the evidence and submissions of the parties concerning Local 30's request to be certified pursuant to section 8 of the Act. This included, of course, the evidence and submissions of the parties concerning the allegations raised in Local 30's section 89 complaint. Rainscreen, who proceeded to call evidence first, and Local 30, each called six witnesses. In mak­ing its factual determinations, the Board has considered all of the oral and documentary evidence and the parties' submissions relating thereto. Since most of the witnesses called by each party gave evidence concerning the key events and given the extensive evidence called, the Board does not propose to set out all of the evidence of each witness. The Board notes that in assessing the evi­dence, it took account of the fact that much of the testimony of the witnesses concerned events which had occurred approximately a year prior to their testifying.

6Rainscreen started operating in approximately October 1986. John Bierma owns 10% of the shares of Rainscreen and he is its general manager. Susan Keslick owns 90% of the shares of Rainscreen. Very generally, Rainscreen is in the business of installing windows and the exterior covering on buildings, such as aluminium siding. Until at least the time Local 30 filed its applica­tion for certification, Rainscreen obtained most of its work via subcontracts from Maxim Group General Contracting Limited ("Maxim"), a company engaged in exterior building repairs and maintenance. Charles Keslick, the husband of Susan Keslick, is the President of Maxim. As a result of a voluntary recognition agreement, Maxim has had a bargaining relationship since 1985 with The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association of the United States and Canada Local Union No. 172, Restoration Steeplejacks ("Local 172"). At the time of the application, Rainscreen was engaged in performing work at the Strathcona Hotel on a subcontract from Maxim. At this time, Rainscreen was also engaged in a small job at the Toronto Dominion Centre. With respect to the Strathcona job, Bierma was responsible for the day-to-day operation of Rainscreen. S. Mueller, a working foreman for Maxim and a member of Local 172, played a role in supervising Rainscreen employees and was involved in co-ordinating the work between Maxim and Rainscreen employees. Rainscreen began the Strathcona job approximately in July 1987 and completed it in January 1988.

7The focus of Local 30's section 89 complaint is on three relatively distinct aspects of Rainscreen's conduct or conduct on behalf of Rainscreen. They are as follows:

(1) the events surrounding two meetings called by Rainscreen, one on November 10 and the other on November 11, 1987;

(2) the lay-offs of D. Wells and J. Parsons by Rainscreen on December 1, 1987; and

(3) the participation of Rainscreen in the origination and circulation of the petition.

The Board will deal with each of these areas in turn.

The Meetings of November 10 and 11, 1987

8J. Moffatt, the President of Local 30 and an organizer, first became aware of Rain-screen's presence on the Strathcona site on November 5, 1987. He made contact with some of Rainscreen's employees which eventually led to a meeting between Moffatt and approximately ten of Rainscreen's employees in a bar at the Strathcona after work on November 9, 1987. Approxi­mately seven employees who attended this meeting signed Local 30 membership cards. One of the employees who attended the meeting was D. Basawa. Basawa, who was not a supporter of Local 30, telephoned Bierma after the meeting and told him the number of employees who attended the meeting and the number, without mentioning any names, of those who signed cards. Basawa sug­gested that Bierma do something or Rainscreen would become unionized. During the early morn­ing of November 10, 1987, Bierma called C. Keslick and asked him if he would address the Rain-screen employees that day about the union. In his evidence, C. Keslick indicated that it was his impression that Bierma thought the presence of the union might be a problem although C. Keslick was not of the same view. C. Keslick was unable to attend a meeting on that day and arranged for P. MacKendrick, a project manager with Maxim, to attend instead.

9Bierma was at the Strathcona at approximately 7:20 a.m. on November 10, 1987. At that time, he met with the Rainscreen employees near the tool room located on one of the floors of the hotel. Bierma testified that he advised the employees that there would be a meeting later that afternoon and that he knew some employees joined the union at a meeting the previous evening. Bierma testified that he asked who joined the union and, upon receiving no response, he said "I'm going to find out anyway". Bierma denied asking the employees who signed cards to raise their hands. However, a number of employees testified concerning this event and the Board accepts their evidence to the effect that Bierma did ask the employees who joined the union to raise their hands. A number of those employees in attendance did raise their hands, including J. Parsons.

10The Board finds that Rainscreen contravened sections 64 and 70 of the Act when Bierma asked employees on November 10, 1987 who joined the union. These provisions of the Act attempt to ensure that employees are able to decide whether they wish to join a trade union in the absence of improper employer influences. The Board has often noted that the relationship between an employer and its employees is a sensitive one. By acting the way he did during the morning of November 10, 1987, Bierma sent the message to Rainscreen's employees that the com­pany knew of Local 30's campaign, that it is interested in knowing who joined and that it would find out who signed cards. Bierma's conduct constitutes interference and intimidation contrary to the Labour Relations Act since it was intended to impact on employee wishes with respect to join­ing or continuing to support Local 30.

11A "captive" audience meeting was held at approximately 2:30 p.m. on November 10. MacKendrick addressed the Rainscreen employees about the subject of craft jurisdiction. The meeting lasted for approximately an hour with no one from Rainscreen management in atten­dance. Another "captive" audience meeting was held on November 11 at 9:30 a.m. to deal with the same subject matter. The principal speaker on this occasion was C. Keslick, while MacKendrick, Bierma and Mueller were in attendance. At both meetings, the subject of benefits was also discussed. Local 30 alleges that certain comments at both meetings either by Rainscreen manage­ment or persons acting on behalf of Rainscreen concerning craft jurisdiction contravened sections 64 and 70 of the Act. It also alleges that these provisions were breached when certain comments by the same persons were made about benefits. The Board will deal first with the allegation relating to benefits.

12Local 30 alleges that Rainscreen employees were promised a benefit package at the meetings of November 10 and 11, 1988 and that such a promise constitutes an attempt on the part of Rainscreen to interfere with Local 30's rights under the Act. After reviewing all of the evidence concerning what was said by management at the meetings of November 10 and 11, 1988, the Board is satisfied that management did not do what Local 30 alleges in regard to benefits. The evidence discloses that Rainscreen has had a number of meetings with its employees since it began operating and some of them were attended by C. Keslick. These meetings dealt with a number of matters including safety issues. One of the subjects raised at most of the meetings held prior to Local 30's organizing campaign was that of benefits. During the early stages of its operation, all of the employees were paid on a subcontract basis. In other words, they were paid a certain amount with­out any deductions and without any benefits. At the earlier meetings, some employees raised the issue of benefits and a considerable amount of discussion occurred between management and employees on this subject. At a meeting in mid-September with employees, management announced that it would implement a standard benefit package, the details of which had not been finalized at that point. Any employee who wanted the benefits could obtain them by ending the subcontracting arrangement and going on the payroll. By the beginning of January 1988, Rain-screen required all employees to be on the payroll system and it provided benefits to everyone. At the meetings in November 1987, certain employees raised the issue of benefits, not management. Some employees at these meetings were recently hired and would have likely been unaware of what discussions had occurred previously concerning benefits. Management simply advised employees at the November meetings that benefits were on the way as discussed previously. The evidence in its totality does not reveal that Rainscreen promised employees at the November meet­ings, or at any time for that matter, that benefits would be provided in order to interfere with Local 30's rights or the rights of employees under the Act.

13The comments relating to craft jurisdiction at both November 1987 meetings are another matter. Again, MacKendrick spoke at the first meeting while C. Keslick was the principal speaker at the second. Both testified that the purpose of the discussion was to ensure that the employees had the full picture and understood the concept of craft jurisdiction. Employees at both meetings were told that Local 30's jurisdiction involved the work of essentially siding and decking and that, if certified, Local 30 would ensure that its members only performed the work within its jurisdiction. Employees were also told that if their work was restricted in this regard, Rainscreen would not be as competitive as might otherwise by expected. The individuals speaking on behalf of Rainscreen did tell employees that the choice was theirs and that their joining Local 30 would not be a problem. At the second meeting, C. Keslick suggested that they might consider other options, such as the Ironworkers.

14The Board is satisfied that Rainscreen's purpose in holding the two meetings with employees in November 1987 went beyond merely conveying information on craft jurisdiction. The meetings were held as a result of Bierma discovering that Local 30 had succeeded in obtaining membership support from some of Rainscreen's employees. Rather than simply holding one meet­ing, Rainscreen held two meetings in which different persons conveyed to employees essentially the same information. Although we do not accept as accurate all of the evidence the employee wit­nesses gave concerning what the management representatives said in connection with craft jurisdic­tion at the November 1987 meetings, we are satisfied that the message management intended to communicate to its employees was that the amount of work available to employees would be reduced if Local 30 became their bargaining agent, which in turn might lead to lay-offs. As noted earlier, a portion of Rainscreen's work involved the installation of windows. The employees were told, in effect, that Local 30 would not permit them to install windows since its jurisdiction was lim­ited to siding and decking. Although the employees were told that their joining Local 30 was not a problem, the comments made on behalf of Rainscreen in their totality could only lead employees to believe their job security was at some risk if they became members of Local 30. Accordingly, the Board finds that the comments made on behalf of Rainscreen at the November 1987 meetings con­cerning craft jurisdiction, including the suggestion that the employees consider the Ironworkers, constitute interference and intimidation contrary to sections 64 and 70 of the Act.

The Lay-Offs of D. Wells and J. Parsons

15Section 89(5) is applicable to the allegations made by Local 30 relating to the lay-offs of Wells and Parsons. In The Barrie Examiner, [1975] OLRB Rep. Oct. 745, the Board addressed the effect of the section 89(5) reversal of the onus of proof as follows:

Given the requirement that there be absolutely no anti-union motive, the effect of the reversal of the onus of proof is to require the employer to establish two fundamental facts - first, that the reasons for the discharge are the only reasons and, second, that these reasons are not tainted by any anti-union motive. Both elements must be established on the balance of probabilities in order for the employer to establish that no violation of the Act has occurred.

In assessing the reasons for an employer's conduct, the Board's task, in essence, is to examine all of the circumstances of a particular case in order to determine whether the true reasons for the treatment of individual employees is at least in part based on anti-union considerations. In carrying out the task in this case, the Board reviewed all of the evidence, but particularly the evidence of Bierma, Mueller, Wells, Parsons and Basawa. Some significant conflicts are contained in the evi­dence given by Bierma and Basawa. After utilizing the usual criteria in assessing the credibility of witnesses, including the fact that Basawa recently became a member of Local 30 and was referred to a good job, the Board prefers the evidence of Basawa to that given by Bierma where there is any significant conflict in their evidence. The Board is satisfied that Basawa truthfully testified about the relevant events. The fact that Basawa is now a member of Local 30 and successfully sought Moffat's assistance in finding a job and the fact that he was upset about the way in which his employment with Rainscreen had come to an end explains why Basawa was prepared to testify. Given all of the evidence, these factors do not lead us to conclude that Basawa lied in order to assist Local 30's certification effort or because of any ill feelings he had towards Rainscreen.

16Wells and Parsons were both hired by Rainscreen in approximately mid-September, 1987. Both employees worked on swing stages installing siding. Depending on the amount of siding to install, Rainscreen had up to at least seven stages, each with two employees, operating at a given time. Wells and Parsons were both laid off on December 1, 1987 by Mueller. Rainscreen's position is that the lay-offs of Wells and Parsons had nothing to do with Local 30's organizing efforts or the fact that these employees became members of Local 30, but rather the lay-offs occurred only because of a shortage of work and because the experience and capabilities of Wells and Parsons dictated that they were the most appropriate individuals to lay-off. Rainscreen sent Wells and Parsons letters in early January recalling them to work for January 6, 1988. Parsons did not receive his recall letter since it was not sent to his address, although it was sent to the address contained in Rainscreen's records. Upon receiving his recall notice, Wells decided not to contact Rainscreen since he did not want to work for the company anymore.

17As noted earlier, Bierma was interested in discovering on November 10, 1987 who had signed cards for Local 30. At that early morning incident, Parsons had indicated by raising his hand that he joined Local 30. Basawa testified that after his call to Bierma to advise him of the first organizing meeting on November 9,1987, he kept in almost nightly contact with Bierma to discuss business matters and to keep Bierma appraised of Local 30's progress. He also testified that during a discussion he had with Bierma during the evening of November 30. 1987, Bierma told him that Wells had signed a union card. Basawa made the comment that Local 30 must be close to securing sufficient support to apply for certification. According to Basawa, Bierma then told him that he was going to lay Wells off. In his evidence, Bierma denied that he had frequent discussions with Basawa concerning Local 30's organizing campaign and he denied having any conversation with him concerning laying-off Wells. In reviewing the evidence of Basawa and Bierma on these points, the Board prefers Basawa's evidence.

18During the early part of the work day on December 1, 1987, Basawa mentioned to P. Dugal, a fellow employee, that Wells was "going down the road". Although Basawa asked Dugal not to say anything to anyone, Dugal spoke with Wells and told him he would be laid off that day because he signed a union card. After hearing this, Wells confronted Bierma about this rumour. Wells testified that Bierma, in Mueller's presence, told him that he was not going to be laid off and that he could not be laid off for signing a union card. Wells indicated that if he was to be laid off, he wanted some notice and he understood Bierma to say he would get two weeks' notice. Later in the day, Mueller told Wells that he was being laid off. When asked by Wells for a reason, Mueller said that that was the way it had to be. Mueller did not give Wells any indication as to how long the lay-off would last. In the late afternoon of December 1, Mueller advised Parsons that he was being laid off as well. Parsons testified that when he asked for a reason for the lay-off, Mueller simply shook his hands and said "that's it". Wells and Parsons both testified that no one had ever com­plained to them about their work or about their punctuality and attendance.

19The essence of Rainscreen's position is that by the end of November, the company's access to electrical outlets was reduced from nine to five, which in turn reduced the number of swing stages it was able to operate. Although the job was behind schedule, the reduction in the electrical outlets meant that Rainscreen was overloaded with manpower. Mueller, the person who decided that Wells and Parsons would be the ones laid off, based his decision on their capabilities and work record in comparison with other employees, some of whom had been hired after Wells and Parsons. Bierma and Mueller both gave evidence concerning what occurred on December 1, 1987 and what the reasons were for the lay-offs. In the Board's view, there is a considerable amount of inconsistency in their evidence which cannot simply be attributed to the fact that they were testifying about events which had occurred a relatively long time ago.

20Bierma testified that he was on his way to see Mueller to discuss the manpower require­ments of the job when he was approached by Wells and had the discussion referred to earlier in Mueller's presence. After the discussion with Wells, Bierma had a discussion with Mueller. When asked in examination-in-chief why Wells and Parsons were laid off, Bierma testified that they had finished their drop and there was nowhere else to put them. Bierma testified that Mueller told him that there was no place to put Parsons and Wells and that they would have to be laid off at the completion of the work day on December 3, 1987. Bierma testified that he told Mueller to inform Wells and Parsons that a glass job was coming up and that they would be called back when it was ready. Mueller testified that he spoke to Bierma about the lay-offs and then noticed Bierma having a discussion with Wells. He testified that he did not tell Bierma that Wells and Parsons would soon complete their drop since these employees did not work together on a swing stage. In his evidence, he said he indicated to Bierma that Wells and Parsons could work until the end of the work day on December 2, 1987. Mueller testified that Bierma told him that there was other work available for sheet metal workers at another location and that if Wells and Parsons had come to work on December 2, he would have advised them to go to Rainscreen's office. In his evidence, Mueller also said that he decided that Wells and Parsons should be laid off given their capabilities and because they had problems with lateness and missing days. He recalled speaking to Wells about these latter problems. Mueller was unable to give any specifics regarding their attendance record.

21Even without regard to the evidence of Basawa, the Board finds that Rainscreen has not met its onus, as described in The Barrie Examiner, supra, of demonstrating that it did not, in part, lay off Wells and Parsons because of Local 30's organizing effort or because these employees supported Local 30. The inconsistencies in the evidence of Bierma and Mueller and the improba­bilities of some aspects of their evidence concerning the lay-offs leads us to conclude that business considerations were not the only considerations that motivated their conduct towards Wells and Parsons. The evidence of these employer witnesses does not adequately provide an explanation for the lay-offs given their timing. But in addition to our view of Bierma's and Mueller's evidence attempting to justify the lay-offs, we have the evidence of Basawa, which we found to be credible, which establishes that Bierma told Basawa on November 30, 1987 that Wells had signed a member­ship card for Local 30, that he believed that Local 30 was close to obtaining enough support for certification and that, for these reasons, he was going to lay off Wells. The Board is satisfied that Rainscreen laid off Wells and Parsons because of their support for Local 30 and because Local 30 was close to obtaining the required membership support from Rainscreen's employees. On the evi­dence before it, the Board is satisfied that Rainscreen contravened sections 64, 66 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act when it laid off Wells and Parsons. We note that the only remedy that Local 30 requested for this contravention of the Act was an order directing Rainscreen to compensate Wells and Parsons for their losses from December 2, 1987 to January 6, 1988, the date of the recall.

The Petition

22We do not propose to deal with Local 30's allegations regarding Rainscreen's involve­ment with the petition in great detail since Local 30 argued that these allegations were directed pri­marily to its request for section 8 relief. Bierma, S. Verge, a working foreman, and Basawa were the principal witnesses on this issue. Bierma and S. Verge testified that Bierma did not play any role in the origination of the petition while Basawa's evidence disclosed just the opposite. Again, the Board prefers the evidence of Basawa on this point. After Rainscreen received notice of Local 30's application, Bierma called Basawa and told him that he wanted him to circulate a paper in order to get employee signatures. The next day, Bierma met S. Verge and Basawa in the lobby of the Strathcona where Bierma provided Basawa with the wording for the preamble and asked him to copy it on a petition. Basawa wrote the heading on the petition using the exact wording pro­vided by Bierma. At the hearing, S. Verge initially testified that he wrote the heading on the peti­tion but upon seeing the petition, he admitted the writing was not his. Basawa and S. Verge both obtained signatures from employees on the petition during working hours. Bierma was quite happy when Basawa advised him of the success he had obtained in getting employees to sign the petition. Bierma made arrangements for S. Verge to transport Basawa to the Board's offices for the purpose of filing the petition. The Board is satisfied that Rainscreen contravened section 64 of the Act when Bierma was involved in the petition activity to the extent described above.

23As the Board noted at the outset, the final resolution of the list of employees and, the extent of the support of Local 30, had to await the Board's determination of the section 89 com­plaint as it related to the lay-offs of Wells and Parsons. Having determined that Wells and Parsons were laid off contrary to the Act, the Board finds that their names should be included on the list of employees. But for Rainscreen's illegal conduct, Wells and Parsons would have been at work on the application date. The list of employees then for the purposes of this application contain the names of eighteen employees. The Board is satisfied on the basis of all the evidence before it that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit, at the time the application was made, were members of the applicant on December 17, 1987, the terminal date fixed for this application and the date which the Board determines, under section 103(2)(j) of the Labour Relations Act, to be the time for the purpose of ascertaining membership under section 7(1) of the said Act. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary for the Board to determine whether Local 30 would be entitled to certification pursuant to section 8 of the Act.

24Section 144(2) of the Act, which states in part as follows, provides for the issuance of more than one certificate if the applicant has the requisite membership support:

the Board shall certify the trade unions as the bargaining agent of the employees in the bar­gaining unit and in so doing shall issue a certificate confined to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and issue another certificate in relation to all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area or areas.

[emphasis added]

Therefore, pursuant to section 144(2) of the Act, a certificate will issue to the applicant affiliated bargaining agent on its own behalf and on behalf of all other affiliated bargaining agents of the employee bargaining agency named in paragraph 8 of the Board's decision dated February 16, 1988 in respect of all journeymen and apprentice sheet metal workers in the employ of the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in the Province of Ontario, save and except non-working foremen and persons above the rank of non-working fore­man.

25Further, pursuant to section 144(2) of the Act, a certificate will issue to the applicant trade union in respect of all journeymen and apprentice sheet metal workers in the employ of the respondent in all sectors of the construction industry in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York, the Towns of Oakville and Halton Hills and that portion of the Town of Milton within the geographic Townships of Esquesing and Trafalgar, and the Towns of Ajax and Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham, excluding the indus­trial, commercial and institutional sector, save and except non-working foremen and persons above the rank of non-working foreman.

26For purposes of clarity, the Board notes that employees working as sheeters, sheeters' assistants and material handlers are employees in the bargaining unit.

27The Board has found Rainscreen to have contravened sections 64, 66 and 70 of the Act as previously indicated. Consequently, the Board orders:

(a) that Rainscreen sign and post copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix", as supplied by the Board, in conspicuous places on its premises and active job sites and to keep such notices posted for fif­teen (15) working days and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Notices are not altered or defaced or covered by any other mate­rial;

(b) that Rainscreen provide reasonable access to a representative of the applicant to permit the applicant to satisfy itself that Rainscreen has complied with this posting order;

(c) that Rainscreen give two representatives of the applicant an opportu­nity to hold a meeting, which will occur within two weeks of the receipt of this decision or a time satisfactory to the applicant, with all employees, without loss of pay, at a location to be agreed to by the applicant and the respondent. Should the parties fail to agree to a location for the meeting, the Board will select a location. The meet­ing may be as much as one hour in length. Rainscreen is further directed to require all employees to attend the meeting;

(d) that Rainscreen compensate D. Wells and J. Parsons for their losses for the period of December 2, 1987 to January 6, 1988 arising out of their lay-offs contrary to sections 64, 66 and 70 of the Act.

28The Board shall remain seized to resolve any dispute concerning compensation or the implementation of these orders.

Appendix

The Labour Relations Act

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board

WE HAVE ISSUES THIS NOTICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH BOTH THE COMPANY AND THE UNION HAD TAE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE. THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT WE VIOLATED THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT AND HAS ORDERED US TO INFORM OUR EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RIGHTS.

THE ACT GIVES ALL EMPLOYEES THESE RIGHTS:

TO ORGANIZE THEMOELVES;

To FORM, JOIN AND PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF A TRADE UNION;

To ACT TOGETHER FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING;

IS REFUSE TO DO ANY AND ALL OF THESE THINGS.

WE ASSURE ALL OF YOU THAT:

WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING THAT INTERFERES WITH THESE RIGHTS;

WE WILL NOT INTIMIDATE OR EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE UPON YOU, WHETHER THROUGH MEETINGS, INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATIONS OR OTHERWISE, TO PREVENT YOU FROM EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AND PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF A UNION.

WE WILL NOT LAYOFF, DISCHARGE OR THREATEN TO LAY OFF OR DISCHARGE ANY EMPLOYEE BECAUSE OF THAT EMPLOYEE'S UNION ACTIVITY OR SYMPATHIES;

WE WILL NOT IN ANY OTHER MANNER INTERFERE WITH OR RESTRAIN OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT.

WE WILL COMPLY WITH ALL DIRECTIONS OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD.

RAINSCREEN METAL SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

PER: ____________________________________________

(AUTHORIZED REPREUENTATIVE)

This is an official notice of the Board and must not be removed or defaced.