Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1990] OLRB Rep. September 925
0967-90-U United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 800, Complainant v. Bonik Incorporated, Respondent
BEFORE: Brain Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and E. G. Theobald.
APPEARANCES: A. J. Ahee and M. Zangari for the complainant; Bob Nikolic for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 21, 1990
1. This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent (also referred to as the "employer") has violated section 15 of the Act.
2. In an oral ruling delivered on September 10, 1990 the Board declared that the employer had failed to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement contrary to section 15 of the Act. The Board also directed the employer to meet with the trade union forthwith and to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement. These are our reasons for that ruling.
3. By certificates dated April 11, 1989, the applicant obtained bargaining rights for the respondent's employees in the ICI sector (not material in the present complaint) and for "all plumbers, plumbers' apprentices, steamfitters and steamfitters' apprentices in the employ of Bonik Incorporated in all sectors of the construction industry within a radius of 57 kilometers (approximately 35 miles) of the City of Sudbury Federal Building, excluding the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, save and except non-working foremen and persons above the rank of nonworking foreman". For ease of reference (if not accuracy) these latter bargaining rights and the corresponding bargaining unit will be referred to as "residential".
4. Initially, the union took the position that in respect of residential bargaining rights and by virtue of the certification, the employer was bound by the terms of the union's "provincial" (ICI) agreement since the latter apparently includes terms and conditions relating to the residential sector. From the evidence before us it would appear that the employer, or at least its then counsel may have concurred in this view. Indeed, it would appear that an application (in Board File 1643-89-G) under section 124 was filed asserting that position. That application was ultimately withdrawn. Shortly thereafter on March 22, 1990, the union served the employer with notice to bargain in respect of its residential bargaining rights pursuant to section 14 of the Act and suggested several possible meeting dates.
5. By letter dated April 14, 1990, Bob Nikolic replied on behalf of the employer asserting that a reply to his earlier letter of October 16, 1989, was a condition precedent to any meeting with the union. The letter referred to was a brief request for "detailed particulars in order to join your union".
6. There then followed an exchange of correspondence culminating in Mr. Nikolic's letter of July 9, 1990. It is not necessary to review this correspondence in detail, it is sufficient to observe that the parties continued to restate their positions i.e. the union continued to attempt to arrange negotiating meetings and Mr. Nikolic continued to refuse to respond until he received a reply to his letter of October 16, 1989.
7. How, whether, or, indeed, why Mr. Nikolic might become a member of the applicant is of little interest to this Board in the context of the present complaint. In any event the union's inability or refusal to provide Mr. Nikolic with the information he was seeking does not relieve the employer of its obligation to bargain in good faith under the Act.
8. It is difficult to contemplate a more fundamental or blatant violation of the duty to bargain in good faith than in the present case. Notwithstanding four separate written invitations from the union over a period of 4 months, the employer has consistently failed or refused to make any arrangements to set up or attend any collective bargaining sessions. Unless the employer recognises and accepts the labour relations duties and obligations imposed by law, we fear that it may not be long before these parties are forced to return to the Board for further litigation.
9. It was for these reasons that we issued our oral ruling on September 10, 1990.