Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 1602-94-M Date: 1994-11-08 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Re: National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW - Canada), Applicant And: Reynolds-Lemmerz Industries, Responding Party
Before: Pamela Chapman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and J. Redshaw.
Appearances: Lisa Kelly, Bruce Davidson, Henry Darrell, John Hill, Morgan Lawrence and Bryon Doucette for the applicant Phillip J. Wolfenden and Ray McPherson for the responding party
Heard: August 10, 1994
Decision of the Board
1This is an application for interim relief pursuant to Section 92.1 of the Act.
2At the hearing of this matter on August 10, 1994, the Board issued the following oral ruling:
(a) an order that the responding party permit the applicant to post, in the same location within the plant which was approved for the posting of a notice of a union meeting prior to July 18, 1994, notice of union meetings and information concerning collective bargaining. The responding party shall immediately post the notice of a union membership meeting scheduled for August 16 and 17, 1994, which was produced by the applicant at the hearing. This order shall not be construed as limiting the right of employees to communicate about the union in any other manner or at any time which may eventually be determined to be protected union activity by the panel hearing the main application; and,
(b) an order that the responding party meet with the applicant's bargaining committee, within 14 days of the date of this decision, in order that the parties may bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement.
3These are our reasons for that decision.
4Most of the facts in this matter were not in dispute. On March 28, 1994, the applicant ("the union") was certified on an interim basis as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party ("Reynolds-Lemmerz"), pending resolution of the bargaining unit description. On April 7,1994, the union gave notice to bargain to the company.
5On April 25, 1994, however, the company filed a request for reconsideration of the certification together with a complaint under section 91 of the Act alleging coercion and forgery by the union with respect to the membership evidence. As a result, the company advised the union, in the face of two further requests to meet to bargain, that it was not prepared to commence bargaining until its allegations had been dealt with by the Board.
6The Board investigated the allegations made by the company, and in a series of decisions dated May 3, May 25 and June 27, 1994, determined that they were without substance. The request for reconsideration and section 91 complaint were withdrawn by Reynolds-Lemmerz.
7The union then renewed its request that bargaining begin, proposing meeting dates between July 18 and 29, 1994, after the plant shutdown. The company did not respond to this request. Instead, on July 6, 1994, Reynolds-Lemmerz applied to the Board, asking that it exercise its discretion to order a representation vote, despite the fact that the union had filed evidence of membership support among more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit. The union vigorously opposes that request. Reynolds-Lemmerz now takes the position that it will not meet to bargain with the union until the Board has dealt with this second request for reconsideration.
8During this same period, the union made certain efforts to communicate with employees in the bargaining unit. At some point prior to the end of June, the union requested and received permission from Reynolds-Lemmerz to post a notice announcing a union membership meeting. On June 30, 1994, the union again requested permission to post notices of union meetings. Reynolds-Lemmerz did not respond to this request, but they now state that they decided, due to "inappropriate behaviour on the part of some Committee members" which was not detailed, to permit no further postings until a collective agreement specifying a procedure for postings had been negotiated.
9On July 18, 1994, several members of the union bargaining committee distributed notices of a union meeting to employees at Reynolds-Lemmerz. In sworn declarations filed by the union, these employees assert that the notices