FPC Flexible Packaging Corporation v. Graphic Communications International Union, Local N-1
[1994] OLRB Rep. July 844
0438-94-R FPC Flexible Packaging Corporation, Applicant v. Graphic Communications International Union, Local N-1 and Graphic Communications International Union, Local 500M, Responding Parties
BEFORE: Pamela Chapman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and H. Peacock
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 26, 1994
1This is an application for a combination of bargaining units pursuant to section 7 of the Labour Relations Act, filed by the employer in this matter, FPC Flexible Packaging Corporation ("FPC"), with respect to two units of employees at its plant in Scarborough, Ontario. These bargaining units are represented by two local unions affiliated with the same international trade union: Graphic Communications International Union, Local N-1 ("Local N-1") and Graphic Communications International Union, Local 500M ("Local 500M").
2Responses to the application were filed by Local N-1 and Local 500M on May 26 and 27, 1994, respectively. Both responding parties have taken the position that the application does not fall within the ambit of section 7, as the employees in the bargaining units sought to be combined are not represented by the same trade union. For the same reason, Local 500M has asked that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 24 of the Board's rules of procedure.
3By endorsement dated May 31, 1994, the Board noted that it was not apparent that an oral hearing was required in order to deal with the issue raised by the responding parties, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions on that issue by June 14, 1994. The Board stated that upon receipt of these submissions the Board would either direct an oral hearing or decide the matter on the basis of the written material.
4Having reviewed the submissions of all parties, we are of the view that this matter should be dismissed without a hearing pursuant to Rule 24, as the application does not make out a case for the order for combination requested, even if all of the facts stated by the applicant in the application and in their written submissions dated June 13, 1994 are assumed to be true.
5Section 7(1) of the Act provides that:
7.-(1) On application by the employer or trade union, the Board may combine two or more bargaining units consisting of employees of an employer into a single bargaining unit if the employees in each of the bargaining units are represented by the same trade union. (emphasis added)
6In this case, the employees in the two bargaining units at FPC which are the subject of the application for combination are represented by two separate local unions, Local N-1 and Local 500M. The employer acknowledges in its submissions that two units have existed for many years, and have entered into separate collective agreements with different terms. However, tt asserts that in April 1993, just prior to the company declaring bankruptcy and being purchased by a new group of investors, FPC approached both local unions to attempt to negotiate certain concessions. An agreement was reached between FPC and the two local unions which provided that one collective agreement would replace the previous two for a three year period from March 16, 1993, the expiry date of the agreement with Local 500M (the Local N-1 agreement was to expire March 16, 1994). In addition, the three parties agreed to certain wage and benefit concessions, and changes to previously negotiated provisions of the two agreements, for the three year term. The new agreement was to contain separate addendums for the two unions, but the parties agreed to seek to negotiate common language where possible within the first year of the agreement.
7The conclusion the employer asks us to draw from this agreement is that the two local unions have agreed that FPC "must.. operate its business as if it was dealing with one trade union and one Collective Agreement". That may well be the case, but it does not constitute even an allegation that the two local unions have merged or in some way transferred or waived their separate bargaining rights with respect to the two units. The facts as alleged by the applicant, therefore, do not establish that there is now a single trade union representing the employees in the two units.
8FPC also states in its submissions that a hearing must be held in order to require the two local unions to prove their separate status. This Board has for many years considered local trade unions as separate entities entitled to trade union status under the Act (see for example American Standard Products (Canada) Ltd., [1965] OLRB Rep.. Feb. 590). In this case, both Local N-1 and Local 500M have been previously recognized by this Board as trade unions within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act. In accordance with the Board's usual practice, then, it is unnecessary for the two unions to prove their status at a hearing.
9Given this Board's prior recognition of the two local unions as trade unions, and the undisputed fact that they have bargained for many years as separate entities representing two separate groups of employees covered by different collective agreements, we have no difficulty in determining that the employees of the employer in the two bargaining units which are sought to be combined are not represented by the same trade union. As such, section 7(1) of the Act cannot be applied to seek a combination of these units. The application is dismissed.