[1994] OLRB Rep. February 151
1709-93-R Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2451, Applicant v. Marriott Corporation (at Carleton University), Responding Party
BEFORE: Russell G. Goodfellow, Vice-chair, and Board Members J.A. Rundle and E. G. Theobald.
APPEARANCES: Fancy Rosenberg, Norman MacKenzie, Larry Wong and A lain Belanger for the applicant; David Cowling, A. J. Grimard and Yvon Langlois for the responding party.
DECISION OF RUSSELL G. GOODFELLOW, VICE-CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER E.G. THEOBALD; February 9, 1994
This is an application for a combination of bargaining units pursuant to section 7 of the Labour Relations Act. The union, or its predecessor, has represented a unit of the respondent's full-time food service employees sine 1980, and a unit of part-time food service employees since 1987.
On the basis of the evidence and submissions of the parties the Board is satisfied that a combination of bargaining units will reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, at least to some extent, without causing serious labor relations problems. The Board's decision is in keeping with its preference for broader based bargaining as a means of enhancing administrative efficiency and convenience, lateral mobility, a common framework of employment conditions and the promotion of industrial stability: See Mississauga Hydro-Electric Commission, [1993] OLRB Rep. June 523.
The Board is not persuaded on the evidence, and in light of section 6(2.1) of the Act, that any differences alleged in the community of interest of the two groups should lead to a different result. Both groups perform substantially the same work under substantially the same conditions. The fact that the part-time group is almost entirely made up of university students with more frequent turnover than the full-time group creates no obstacles to the ability of the two groups to bargain together.
Moreover, the possibility that the Board's decision may enhance the union's bargaining power, as the employer suggests, is entirely speculative and poses no greater threat to viable and stable collective bargaining than the present arrangement. It is also not the kind of "serious labour relations problem" to which section 7(3) is addressed. Likewise, the fact that some or all of the respondent's competitors may not operate with similar bargaining structures is not a factor which the Board deems "appropriate" to consider under section 7(3).
Both bargaining units are subject to existing collective agreements. The full-time agreement expires on August 31, 1994. The part-time agreement expires on February 28, 1995. In light of the fact that the part-time agreement was concluded while this application for combination of bargaining units was pending, the Board does not consider it appropriate at this time to direct an early termination of that agreement as requested by the applicant.
The Board therefore directs that the applicant's bargaining units be combined, and will remain seized to deal with any further remedial relief.
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J.A. RUNDLE; February 9, 1994
- With reluctance I concur. It seems to me that in the absence of any real labour relations difficulties created by the present arrangement, the primary purpose of the present application is to enhance the union's bargaining power. Unfortunately, given the language of Section 7 and the state of the Board's jurisprudence to date, (Mississauga Hydro-Electric Commission, [1993] OLRB Rep. June 523.) this does not appear to be a factor that the Board is prepared to consider