[1990] OLRB Rep. September 939
0787-90-U Northfield Metal Products Ltd., Applicant v. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers International Union (A.F.L. - C.I.O. - Respondent
BEFORE: Robert D. Howe, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Irwin A. Duncan for the applicant; Joanne L. McMahon, Brian Scott, and Ross
Armstrong for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 13, 1990
This is an application for declaratory relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act.
On September 11, 1990, after hearing and recessing to consider the submissions of the parties regarding certain preliminary matters raised by the respondent, the Board rendered the following oral ruling:
Section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, which is the provision which empowers the Board to grant declaratory relief of the type requested by the applicant, also makes the granting of such relief discretionary. It is well established in the Board's jurisprudence that the purpose of the remedies available under section 92 is not to punish, but rather to provide information and guidance to the parties as to their legal rights, and to bring to an end unlawful conduct which falls within the purview of that provision. It is also well established that the Board will generally not grant a declaration or any other relief under section 92 if the strike activity has ended by the time of the hearing, unless there has been a pattern of unlawful strikes, the employer has reason to fear a recurrence of the strike activity, the strike has implications extending beyond the parties, or the purpose of the strike is to compel the employer to bargain with a union that is not the employees' bargaining agent (see Sack and Mitchell, Ontario Labour Relations Board Law and Practice, at paragraph 8:8130). None of those exceptional circumstances is applicable in the instant case. On the basis of the allegations contained in the application, all of which are assumed for purposes of this ruling to be true and provable, it is clear that the alleged work slowdown at the "1800 table" commenced in April of 1989 and ended on September 18, 1989. However, this application was not filed until June 18, 1990, nine months after the alleged unlawful activity had ceased, and almost three months after the union's bargaining rights were terminated as a result of a representation vote conducted by the Board on March 27, 1990. Although the respondent may not have been in a position to fully quantify the slowdown until the Fall of 1989, it is clear from the facts pleaded in the application that the company was aware of the slowdown in the Spring of 1989 and raised the matter during negotiations as early as May 11, 1989. As indicated in Practice Note No. 16, a section 92 applicant can generally obtain an expedited hearing of its application. Given that relief under section 92 is intended to provide information and guidance to the parties, and to bring unlawful conduct to an end, it would not be in the interests of sound labour relations to grant relief under section 92 where a party delays bringing such application until long after the allegedly unlawful conduct has ceased, and the union's bargaining rights have been terminated, with a view to obtaining damages against the union. For the foregoing reasons, assuming all of the facts alleged in the application to be true and provable, the Board, in the exercise of its discretion under section 92 of the Act, would not be prepared to grant declaratory or any other relief in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed.