United Steelworkers of America v. Weatherstrong Building Products Ltd.
Parties
Complainant/Applicant: United Steelworkers of America Respondent: Weatherstrong Building Products Ltd. Objectors: Group of Employees
Decision
Before: M. G. Mitchnick, Chair, and Board Members G. 0. Shamanski and R. R. Montague. Decision of the Board: January 22, 1992
1This is an application for certification involving an array of charges, a request for certification pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Act, a related section 91 (formerly section 89) complaint, and a statement by employees in opposition to the application for certification.
2The matter initially had been set down for 5 days of hearing. Instead, however, the parties on their own have been able to piece together what counsel for the applicant quite properly describes as "a positive and creative approach to a complicated certification application". One element of that omnibus settlement, however, requires the Board to conduct, in its usual way, a representation vote amongst the employees in the bargaining unit. Because of that the parties have had to submit their agreement - somewhat gingerly, as a result, we gather, of some varying experiences with the Board in the past - to a panel of the Board for its approval.
3Given the apparent history surrounding this issue, we feel it appropriate to express the views of the Board somewhat more fully. The Labour Relations Board of this province, as anywhere, is a public-service tribunal, and exists for the purpose of doing what it can to facilitate the timely resolution of workplace disputes. As a "creature" of statute, the powers of the Board in that regard are subject of course to the bounds determined for it by the governing legislation. But as with the question of the Board's remedial powers in general, both the Board and the Courts have recognized that there would be little by way of "public policy" to support the adoption of a narrow construction of those powers. Compare Radio Shack, [1979] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1220, upheld (Re Tandy Electronics Ltd. and United Steel Workers of America et al) 1979 CanLII 1914 (ON HCJ), 26 O.R. (2d) 68, 80 CLLC ¶14,017 (Ont. Div. Ct.), application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed March 10, 1980. Here, the parties have satisfied themselves, as evidenced by their written agreement, and having regard to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the potential results thereunder, that the facts and material before them render it appropriate that this case proceed directly to a vote under the Act for a resolution of the "representation" issue. The Board sees no reason not to act on that agreement of the parties. Indeed, as an alternative to litigation, there would appear to be nothing standing in the way of all parties to a proceeding agreeing as a fact that the Board is in a position to exercise any jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute.
4The Board accordingly directs that a representation vote be taken amongst the employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit, consisting of:
All employees of the respondent in the Town of Smiths Fails, save and except forepersons, persons above the rank of foreperson, office, clerical and sales staff.
All those employed in the bargaining unit on the date hereof, who are so employed on the date the vote is taken will be eligible to vote.
5Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the respondent.
6The matter is referred to the Registrar for the conduct of the aforesaid representation vote.
7Board File No. 2167-91-U is adjourned sine die, having further regard to the agreement of the parties. Unless within a period of one year from the date hereof either party requests that the Board proceed with the matter, it will be terminated.