[1991] OLRB Rep. February 223
2243-90-U Branimir Katkic, Complainant v. CAW Local 1285 and Terry Gorman President of CAW Local 1285, Respondent
BEFORE: S. A. Tacon, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and H. Peacock.
APPEARANCES: Branimir Katkic and James Peters for the complainant; Jim O'Neil, Terry Gorman, Joe P. Kremer and Vince Bailey for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 21, 1991
1This is a complaint pursuant to section 89 of the Labour Relations Act in which the complainant alleges a breach of sections 72(4) and 68 of the Act.
2At the hearing, the Board gave the following oral ruling:
The Board has considered the submissions of the parties in the context of the evidence led before the Board through witnesses and documentary material. The Board regards it as appropriate to give its ruling orally.
The Board intends to briefly set out its factual findings, made after having weighed and assessed the evidence. The persons attending the meeting on October 28, 1990 were handed material indicating the highlights of the tentative collective agreement. Those persons also were handed a ballot. The Local President, T. Gorman, explained the ballot and the voting procedures, including the location of the ballot boxes. The explanation of the proposed collective agreement followed; questions were taken from the floor. During that discussion, which lasted over one hour, President Gorman indicated that the ballot boxes were open and that it would be appreciated if people cast ballots before leaving. People did cast ballots during the discussion portion of the meeting and some may have left without casting ballots. Following discussion, President Gorman called for a motion to endorse the bargaining committee's recommendation in favour of the collective agreement. That motion was moved, seconded, and adopted by a show of hands. Those remaining at the meeting at that point, approximately one quarter of those present initially, were then told to vote. The first meeting concerned the production workers; that was followed by a skilled trades meeting and their vote. The results were announced to those few still present after the meetings and the votes were counted. The results for the entire Chrysler contract (including five Locals) were announced subsequent to the ratification votes of all affected Locals.
Section 72(4) of the Act reads:
(4) A strike vote or a vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement taken by a trade union shall be by ballots cast in such a manner that a person expressing his choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed.
Given the evidence, and having considered the parties' submissions, the Board finds that the respondent did not contravene section 72(4) of the Act. There was a secret ballot vote to ratify the collective agreement. That vote was clearly conducted in a manner that a person expressing his or her choice could not be identified with that choice expressed. The Board is not persuaded that the show of hands to endorse the committee's recommendation is covered by section 72(4) or constitutes a violation of section 72(4) in the circumstances of this case. In the Board's view, the show of hands served only to formally conclude the discussion and did not affect the secret ballot vote and it was only the secret ballot vote which was relevant to determining whether or not the collective agreement was ratified.
With respect to the allegation that section 68 was breached, that section reads:
- A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
The Board has heard no evidence which would found such a violation of the Act.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Board hereby dismisses the complaint.