Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1990] OLRB Rep. May 592
0239-89-R; 0240-89-U Toronto Typographical Union, Number 91, Printing Publishing and Media Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of North America, Applicant v. Innopac Inc., Progressive Packaging Limited, Condor Laminations, Respondents; Toronto Typographical Union, Number 91, Printing Publishing and Media Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of North America, Complainant v. Innopac Inc., Progressive Packaging Limited, Condor Laminations, Respondents
BEFORE: S. A. Tacon, Vice-Chair, and Board Members M. Rozenberg and P. V. Grasso.
APPEARANCES: Nelson Roland, Douglas W. Grey and Harriet Simand for the applicant/complainant; David Brisbin, M. B. Cooke for Progressive Packaging Limited and Ted Hutcheson for Innopac Inc.
DECISION OF S. A. TACON, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER M. ROZENBERG; May 4, 1990
11. Board File 0239-89-R is an application pursuant to section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act wherein the applicant seeks a declaration that the respondents constitute a single employer for purposes of the Act. Board File 0240-89-U is a complaint under section 89 of the Act in which the complainant alleges contravention of sections 3, 15, 64, 67, 70 and 72. The gravamen of the complaint involves the transfer of work from Condor Laminations to Progressive Packaging and the resultant layoff of approximately one-half of the bargaining unit employees, the failure to hire laid-off Condor employees at Progressive and the letters to employees to be laid-off, as well as wage increases and a bonus paid to Progressive employees and certain asserted "anti-union" remarks attributed to various management personnel at Innopac Inc. The applicant/complainant, the Toronto Typographical Union, is the bargaining unit agent for employees at Condor, and, for ease of exposition, is referred to as the "union
22. The matter proceeded on the basis that Purity Packaging was not involved as a separate entity and, so, the Board