[1995] OLRB Rep. July 986
3273-94-R Graphic Communications International Union, Local 500M, Applicant v. Metroland Printing, Publishing & Distributing Ltd., Responding Party
BEFORE: Gail Misra, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and H. Peacock.
APPEARANCES: Melissa Kronick, Norm Beattie and Frank O'Reilly for the applicant; F. G. Hamilton and Brenda Biller for the responding party.
DECISION OF GAIL MISRA, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK; July 27, 1995
This is an application for the combination of two bargaining units. The applicant represents a unit composed of the press and photomechanical employees of the responding party at its Wolfdale Road plant. The applicant also represents a separate bargaining unit made up of the mail room employees of the responding party at the Wolfdale Road location. It is these two units the applicant is seeking to combine into one bargaining unit. The responding party opposes the combination application on the basis that the two units are separate craft units having craft collective agreements, and argues that the Labour Relations Act neither permits nor contemplates the combination of bargaining units of different crafts.
The applicant (the "union") is requesting that the Board combine the two bargaining units pursuant to section 7 of the Act, which states as follows:
7.-(i) 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.
(3) The Board may take into account such factors as it considers appropriate and shall consider the extent to which combining the bargaining units,
(a) would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining;
(b) would reduce fragmentation of bargaining units; or
(c) would cause serious labour relations problems.
(6) This section does not apply with respect to bargaining units in the construction industry.
The union submits that combining the two bargaining units will facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, will reduce fragmentation, and, will cause no serious labour relations problems for the employer. It argues that section 6 of the Act addresses applications for certification and suggests that the factors considered by the Board in such applications are not the same factors which the Board is concerned with in combination applications. The union posits that craft distinctions are no longer relevant in the newspaper industry, and, that the history of mergers of various craft unions to form what is presently the Graphic Communications International Union, Local 500M, indicates that over a period of time there has been a dilution of craft considerations.
The responding party (the "employer" or "Metroland") argues that by virtue of section 6(3) of the Act the Board cannot combine craft bargaining units. It argues that this section cannot be read out of the Act and that the Board has no discretion to interfere with the mandatory bargaining unit envisaged pursuant to section 6(3). Section 6(3) states as follows:
6.-(3) Any group of employees who exercise technical skills or who are members of a craft by reason of which they are distinguishable from the other employees and commonly bargain separately and apart from other employees through a trade union that according to established trade union practice pertains to such skills or crafts shall be deemed by the Board to be a unit appropriate for collective bargaining if the application is made by a trade union pertaining to the skills or craft, and the Board may include in the unit persons who according to established trade union practice are commonly associated in their work and bargaining with the group, but the Board shall not be required to apply this subsection where the group of employees is included in a bargaining unit represented by another bargaining agent at the time the application is made.
In addition to its contention that the Labour Relations Act does not permit the combination of craft units, the employer submits that combination of these two bargaining units would not facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining because these units do not share common interests and, indeed, appear to have conflicting interests as manifest by the events of the recent past (outlined in the facts below). It argued there should be no concern about fragmentation since section 6(3) of the Act supports fragmentation along craft lines and since, at the time of certification, the union had wanted, and got, craft bargaining units, it was not now open to the union to argue for combination of two different craft units. Finally, the employer argued that combination would cause serious labour relations problems because of the difficulty of bargaining a joint collective agreement at the outset, and subsequent collective agreements would take longer to negotiate because of the disparate interests of the two groups. The employer was concerned about the effect combination would have on the employees' already low morale, and on the employees' feelings of insecurity. There was concern that the mail room group, being the smaller group, would have its wishes ignored by the more numerous and craft-oriented employees in the press and photomechanical group.
In the course of two days of the hearing, the union called two witnesses and the employer called one witness. Prior to this panel reaching its decision, on May 10, 1995, the Board (panel somewhat differently constituted) released a decision in The Windsor Star, (Board File Nos. 2379-94-R and 2380-94-R, May 10, 1995, unreported) [now reported at [1995] OLRB Rep. May 714]. Since that decision addressed some of the issues argued before this panel, the Board circulated the decision to the parties for their comments. Written submissions were made to the Board by both parties. In reaching our decision we have considered all of the evidence led and the oral and written submissions of the parties. The facts relied upon by the majority in reaching its decision are described below.
In December 1968 the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union was successful in organizing and being certified to represent the lithographic offset pressmen (and their apprentices, feeders and helpers) and the photolithographic offset cameramen, platemakers, strippers, and their apprentices, at the predecessor employer to the responding party, Inland Publishing.
In December 1968 the employees of Metroland's predecessor, Inland Publishing, in the bindery operations, were organized by the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 28.
In order to appreciate the union's position that the combination of the two bargaining units in question would not be antithetical to the traditional "craft" orientation of this union, evidence was led to outline the history of the present union. For the purposes of this decision it is unnecessary to recount this history. Suffice it to say the present union owes its existence to the merger of various craft unions and locals. Between 1964 and 1984 there were mergers of lithographers, photoengravers, bookbinders, and printing pressmen, leaving only typographers unrepresented in this industry by the Graphic Communications International Union. Thus, the two bargaining units described above came to be represented by the present applicant.
There are approximately 38 employees covered by the press and photomechanical collective agreement, and approximately 13 employees covered by the mail room collective agreement. The two bargaining units have not bargained together in the past as the mail room collective agreement expires eight months prior to the press and photomechanical collective agreement. The parties took between five and six months to negotiate a new collective agreement for the mail room in 1994. Negotiations for the renewal of the press and photomechanical agreement have not yet resulted in a settlement, and, the parties are now in conciliation.
Metroland publishes 28 community newspapers in and around Toronto. It also prints the eye for the Toronto market and various flyers. Prior to the existence of Metroland, Metrospan was a company owned by Torstar, and Inland Publishing was a company owned by the Bassett family. In 1981 Torstar bought Inland Publishing and renamed the company Metroland Printing, Publishing & Distributing Ltd. The bargaining units in question in this application had had collective agreements with Inland Publishing prior to its acquisition by Torstar.
Newspapers which have their printing done at the Wolfdale Road plant, except for the Mississauga News, send flats of the pages to be printed to Wolfdale Road. The photomechanical department then shoot film of the flats, strip the film, and make plates. The plates go to the press room where the press employees put the plates on the press and run the product. The printed papers go by a conveyor up to the mail room where the papers are jogged into bundles, are stacked onto skids, and are prepared to be shipped out by the mail room employees.
The Mississauga News sends film to the plant, rather than sending over flats, and no stripping of that film should be required. Plates are made by the Wolfdale plant photomechanical department and the printing is done as for the other newspapers.
Between April and August, 1994, during the mail room negotiations, Brenda Biller, the Director of Human Resources for Metroland, asked Norm Beattie, the Vice-President of GCIU Local SOOM, if the union was going to combine the two units at Wolfdale Road. She was aware that another union at one of the Metroland newspapers had applied for combination of bargaining units, and that a GCIU local at a Southam operation around Owen Sound had applied for combination of their bargaining units. Beattie told Biller he would get back to her. Biller indicated to Beattie that if the union was not going to apply for combination, the employer may contemplate doing so. Biller thought it may be a good idea because the mail room group was such a small group of employees that they did not like to take the lead position in bargaining concessions when their negotiations preceded the press room negotiations. In the last agreement there were therefore a number of items left contingent on the outcome of the press room negotiations.
Beattie canvassed the idea with the shop delegates for the two Wolfdale units and asked them to check with their members. He was later told there was no interest in combining the units and he conveyed that message to Biller. It was not until the union was meeting with the press and photomechanical unit in August or September 1994, to set proposals for their negotiations, that a member asked why the union had not negotiated one collective agreement. It then became apparent that at the earlier instance the shop delegates had not asked all of the members for their views on combination. Thereafter, the union began the process of calling a special meeting to discuss combination.
Since the 1980's the GCIU Local 500M has not applied for units of employees by a single craft, unless that craft was the only remaining group of unorganized employees in a particular workplace. They have tended to organize "all employee" units or "tag end" units wherever possible. These units may include bindery, photomechanical, and other employees. The evidence indicates that other locals of the GCIU were not all following the policy adopted by GCIU Local 500M. Notwithstanding that, the Board accepts that it is GCIU Local 500M's policy to organize broad units wherever possible, rather than continuing to organize by specific crafts. The Board has found that GCIU Local 500M is a trade union within the meaning of the Act, and, since the present application has been made by this trade union, the Board is only interested in what this union's policies are.
In 1994, to take advantage of the amendments made to the Labour Relations Act allowing for the combination of bargaining units, the GCIU Local 500M decided as a matter of policy to encourage the merger of units wherever there was more than one collective agreement with the same employer. To this end, at some time prior to Sunday, November 27, 1994, GCIU Local 500M sent notices to its members who worked at Metroland Printing, Publishing & Distributing Ltd., at the Wolfdale Road location, to inform them of a special meeting to be held on that date. Between 15 and 25 members (out of a possible approximately 51 employees) attended the meeting, and the secret ballot vote held indicated that the overwhelming majority of those present at the meeting supported combination of the two bargaining units. The present application for combination of the two bargaining units was subsequently filed.
There are some similarities between the prevailing collective agreements for the two units. However, the application of the same type of collective agreement provisions may be different because of the way the two units are scheduled for work. As was mentioned earlier, the mail room agreement has some provisions which are contingent on the outcome of the press and photomechanical negotiations.
While there is some scope in the mail room agreement for mail room employees to move to other departments of the company, no mail room employee has moved into the press room, covered by the press and photomechanical collective agreement, in the last seven years.
There has never been a strike or lock-out at Metroland. However, the employer maintains that if there was a work-stoppage affecting the press room, managerial staff would be able to run the presses and there would still be work available for the mail room. If a combination is ordered by the Board, both the press and mail rooms would be affected by any work-stoppage.
The current mail room collective agreement contains a letter of agreement dated August 5, 1994, indicating that mail room employees may be assigned to assist press crews for some functions. Mail room employees are only to be assigned to those functions if there is no mail room work to be done and if the work is required in the press room because a major make-ready is required, there are late papers, or there is a lack of work. The parties agreed they would review the status of this program after six months and may modify the terms of the letter at that time. If they could not agree on changes, the union would conduct a vote on this issue alone and the vote would determine whether or not the mail room employees would continue to assist the press crews.
The reason the employer had wished to negotiate the above-noted letter of agreement was that the mail room employees do not have any work to do on Thursday nights and would therefore have had to be laid off for that time. In the two years preceding 1994 Metroland employees had been required to work on a reduced schedule of only two days a week. Although all employees in the mail room were back at work, employee morale was low as a result of the recessionary measures the employer had taken. In an effort to avoid laying off staff once a week the employer therefore wanted to use the down time to train the mail room employees to do some of the clean-up work, to move rolls and put rolls into the press, and in some other press helper functions. Not all of the mail room employees wanted to go and work in the press room, however, this agreement was subsequently ratified, along with the rest of the negotiated collective agreement. One of Metroland's concerns about the current combination application is that if the combination is allowed, the units will be amalgamated and then the press and photomechanical unit employees, who far outnumber the mail room employees, will be in a position to vote down this provision of the agreement which had been reached. As will become apparent, this concern is not without some merit having regard to the attitude of the press employees towards the mail room employees.
When Metroland sent some mail room employees into the press room for training, as envisaged by the August 5, 1994, letter of agreement, the press and photomechanical bargaining unit objected strongly and filed a policy grievance. The grievance alleged the employer had breached some of the Definitions sections of the press and photomechanical agreement which indicate who can do certain work. The grievance claimed mail room employees could only come to work in the press room if no press department employee was available to do the work in question. It appears the press room employees did not want the mail room employees coming into their area as they were concerned about their own job security. The union claims this was a misunderstanding by the press and photomechanical local which was resolved following a meeting to discuss the grievance, and the grievance was not pursued. However, in negotiations, when the employer proposed including language in the press and photomechanical agreement to facilitate implementation of the letter in the mail room agreement, and, to ensure there would be no more grievances of this type, there was a negative response from the union, and in particular, from the steward responsible for the press employees. There was no evidence to indicate the union made a counter proposal. Subsequently, the employer withdrew the proposal from the table in February 1995.
Another labour relations problem identified by the employer is the term of the press and photomechanical agreement. It appears since the filing of this combination application the union has taken the position in its negotiations for the new press and photomechanical agreement, that the term of the collective agreement should be such that this agreement, and the mail room agreement, should expire together on April 30, 1996. This would mean the press and photomechanical agreement would run from January 1, 1995 to April 30, 1996, a period of sixteen months. The previous agreements had two year terms. The employer wants a three year agreement to ensure stable and known labour costs in an environment where newsprint costs are increasing.
Despite Ms. Biller's remark to Mr. Beattie that the employer may contemplate requesting combination of the two bargaining units, the employer no longer supports the idea of combination. The reason for its position is that it believes the press room staff are too nervous about having the mailers working in the press room because the latter's presence would dilute their jobs. The employer's view is based on the press unit's grievance (outlined earlier); on the negotiating position taken by the union in the press and photomechanical negotiations; and, on the employer's perception of animosity between the two units because of the pressmen's pride in their work and their concern about who will work with them. Considering this environment, Metroland is concerned that it will be difficult to bargain a joint collective agreement, and that any efficiencies of bargaining one collective agreement will be lost as a result. In addition, the employer is concerned that in a combined collective agreement it would not be able to get agreement on items like the letter of agreement it negotiated with the mailers in the last round of negotiations because the press and photomechanical group would far outnumber the mailers in a new combined group.
Metroland took the position that GCIU Local 500M has relied on its traditional and historical craft rights in the past. It did so in bargaining separate collective agreements. More recently, it fought a long grievance arbitration battle with the employer when Metroland closed its composing room and moved some of that work to the advertising department of the Mississauga News. The union has claimed that the work now being done on computers in the advertising department is part of their craft jurisdiction. No award has issued yet in that case. Metroland also contends that the Board cannot decide this case without considering how the Graphic Communications International Union as a whole has traditionally relied on its craft union status to get bargaining units differentiated by craft designations. Other locals of the GCIU have been applying for craft bargaining units and the employer argues that what GCIU Local 500M has decided is its policy cannot be divorced from what the whole union is doing. Even within the GCIU Local 500M, after the mergers of various craft unions and locals, this local continued to bargain and argue positions based on its craft designations. Thus, the press and photomechanical collective agreement has provisions for preferential hiring, has no probationary period, contains elaborate staffing tables, allows for apprenticeships and training programs, and generally has different scheduling, when compared to the mail room collective agreement.
The employer’s written submissions on The Windsor Star decision, cited above, indicate its view that the Board in that case misinterpreted section 6(3). In addition, Metroland argues that the facts in The Windsor Star bear no similarity to those before this panel of the Board. It submitted that the Act cannot be used to combine craft and non-craft units.
The union’s submission with respect to The Windsor Star decision is that the facts in that case and the one before this panel are not entirely dissimilar and that the facts present here do support combination.
DECISION
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the two bargaining units should be combined.
It was argued on behalf of the employer that the Board must read section 6(3) of the Act such that craft bargaining units cannot be combined. On this theory, the union, having relied on its craft status in the conduct of its relations with the employer, cannot now seek combination and ask the Board to ignore the craft designation of these two bargaining units. The union argued there was nothing in section 7 to limit the Board's ability to combine craft units. Further, it argued that section 6 addresses considerations pertinent to certification applications, and that those criteria are different from what the Board considers in combination applications.
The combination of craft bargaining units and non-craft bargaining units has been considered recently by the Board in The Windsor Star, (Board File Nos. 2379-94-R and 2380-94-R, May 10, 1995, unreported) [now reported at [1995] OLRB Rep. May 714]. In that case, the Board was asked to combine a maintenance unit, a truck driver unit, and a craft unit composed of journeymen pressmen at a newspaper. The employer argued that the craft unit could only be combined with a like craft unit and that the mandatory language of section 6(3) deemed that the units in question were not capable of being combined. The argument made by the employer in The Windsor Star case appears to be very similar to the argument made in the case before this panel.
In addressing this argument the Board, which ultimately found that combination of the three bargaining units was appropriate in The Windsor Star, stated as follows:
We commence with an analysis of those sections. Section 6(3) is part of section 6, which is applicable in certification applications, and describes the Board's task of choosing the basic building block of collective bargaining, the bargaining unit. There has been special provision for craft units since the inception of provincial legislation in this area. See section 5(4) of the Wartime Labour Regulations under the Labour Relations Board Act, 1944. This provision and its successors give recognition to the historical status and claims of the practitioners of certain crafts. The Board is required by section 6(3) to deem appropriate for collective bargaining a unit which meets the section's definition, if the application for certification is made by a trade union pertaining to the skills or craft at issue. However, it is not required to apply it on a displacement application, where the craft employees are already in a bargaining unit represented by another bargaining agent. The threshold set by the section is quite specific and has a number of prerequisites: 1) a group who exercises technical skills or who are members of a craft; 2) by reason of which they are distinguishable from the other employees; 3) who commonly bargain separately and apart from other employees; 4) through a trade union that according to established trade union practice pertains to such skills or craft. Both the group and the union applying have to be identifiably linked to the craft. Section 6 was changed by the Bill 40 amendments, particularly with respect to full-time, part-time and professional bargaining units, but section 6(3) was left untouched.
Section 7 on the other hand, is new to the Act as of January, 1993. It gives the Board the discretion to combine bargaining units, either at the time of certification or later, where each of the bargaining units is represented by the same trade union. The Board is entitled to take into account whatever factors it considers appropriate, but the factors considered must include the extent to which combining the bargaining units, would (a) facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining; (b) reduce fragmentation of bargaining units; or (c) cause serious labour relations problems.
Although the Legislature has not been explicit about how sections 6 and section 7 work together as to the definition of bargaining units, the basics can be ascertained from the choices made in what was and what was not changed in 1993. The Legislature can be taken to have been aware that craft units create fragmentation in many bargaining unit structures. Yet section 6(3) was left unchanged. Others of the amendments, including section 7, specifically endorse and mandate reduction in fragmentation. And the statute ought to be interpreted as a harmonious whole. The Legislature has thus underlined the overall value in the reduction of fragmentation, but has left the craft union's right to apply for and have deemed appropriate a traditional craft unit at the point of certification. However, section 7 represents another point at which the Board may look at bargaining unit structure, and the status of a craft unit was not listed as one of the mandatory considerations in this second look. Nor is there any mandatory prohibition concerning craft units, or any specific negative direction as in section 7(4), where the Board is told specifically not to combine geographically separate manufacturing bargaining units in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, the Legislature provided that the section not apply in the construction industry, where the provisions for province-wide bargaining are almost entirely based on a craft union structure.
We agree with employer counsel that Bill 40 did not water down section 6(3) or make section 7 supreme and that section 6(3) is obligatory while section 7 is discretionary. However, we do not agree that it follows that the Board is not allowed to combine craft and non-craft units.
While a craft unit is mandatory under the conditions outlined in section 6(3), we are of the view that fundamental to that section is that it is at the point of certification. And it is structured differently than section 6(6) which indicates certain units of guards should remain separate to avoid conflict of interest. (See The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] OLRB Rep. Feb. 150). We are not of the view that there is any competition between the mandatory nature of section 6(3) and the discretionary nature of section 7. The two sections can be read in a harmonious manner, giving both their full weight. This can be done by treating the historical status of craft units, as expressed in section 6(3) of the Act, and preserved in the Bill 40 amendments, as one of the things that the Board may take into account in exercising its discretion under section 7 either in general, or as part of the consideration of potential serious labour relations problems. In sum, we are persuaded that there is no bar to combining a craft unit with another unit expressed either in section 6 or section 7.
Thus, in our view it is appropriate to consider this application on its merits in light of the statutory criteria for combination applications.
We agree with the reasoning of the Board in The Windsor Star, cited above, with respect to this issue and do not agree with the Metroland submission that the Board in The Windsor Star misinterpreted the statute. Although the panel in that case was being asked to combine a craft unit with non-craft units, and we are being asked to combine two craft units, we are of the view that the reasoning is the same. Section 6(3) clearly operates at the point of certification, however, the legislature did not include craft status as one of the list of matters which the Board is obliged to consider when dealing with section 7 applications. Nor did the legislature indicate in any way that the combination provision should not have application to craft units, as it did for bargaining units in the construction industry. While the craft status of the two units in question before this panel is one of the things which we may take into account in exercising our discretion under section 7, we find there is no bar to a combination of two or more craft units, either to each other, or to other non-craft units.
In reaching our decision we have given consideration to the factors outlined in section 7(3). We are of the view that combination of these two bargaining units would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining. These parties already have a history of bargaining amicably and there have been no strikes or lock-outs that the parties were aware of in the last 25 years. Nonetheless, having only one collective agreement will mean there will be only one opportunity for a work stoppage to occur, rather than the current situation of having two periods when work stoppage would be legal.
We are cognizant of the evidence of recent tension between the mail room unit and the press and photomechanical unit regarding the use of mail room personnel in the press room. The majority is of the view that this tension will likely be reduced by an order combining the two units and that combining the units will assist in lowering the artificial barriers between these two units, barriers which may have contributed to the tension between the units. Combination will be of assistance to the applicant to the extent that it will allow the union to present a unified bargaining proposal for both the units. Combination will also facilitate collective bargaining as it will eliminate the need to conduct two separate rounds of bargaining, and, it will reduce any possibilities of work jurisdiction grievances.
We note that within the last year the employer, through Ms. Biller, had raised the possibility of the employer applying for combination of these two units. Ms. Biller had noted that the small group of mail room employees appeared not to like to have to take the lead in bargaining even though their collective agreement expired before the press and photomechanical unit's agreement. As a result, even after their bargaining was complete, some items remained outstanding pending the outcome of the second group's negotiations. Combination of these units would eliminate this problem which results from the fact that 13 employees in the smaller unit do not feel they can bargain effectively the terms which will have an impact on the larger group of 38 employees. Thus, through this combination, the fragmentation of this workforce will be reduced.
It was argued on behalf of the employer that the present negotiations between the employer and the press and photomechanical unit have bogged down on the issue of the term of the collective agreement. We cannot see how problems in those negotiations can be characterized as serious labour relations problems which the Board should consider in determining whether a combination application should be allowed.
A combination order will eliminate the duplication of effort and costs associated with separate collective bargaining for the two units. Although it may initially take some time to meld the two collective agreements, since the parties are presently in negotiations for the press and photomechanical agreement, it will make it easier to work on only one set of negotiations. Stability will be favoured by the parties having to administer only one collective agreement, rather than the present two.
While the majority notes the concern the employer has exhibited for the morale of its employees, we are bound to weigh the evidence and the legislated considerations in reaching our decision on whether or not combination of the two bargaining units is appropriate. The evidence before us suggests that the union consulted with both bargaining units prior to making this application, and it received support for the idea of combination. It is the trade union which is the bargaining agent for all of these employees, and as such, it represents their interests. There were no employees from either of the bargaining units who requested of the Board that they be permitted to participate in these proceedings, and no employee testified before the Board with respect to any matter. In The North Bay Nugget, [1994] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1137, a combination application case in the newspaper industry, the Board heard evidence of similar tensions between the production department and the advertising department at that newspaper. The Board, in granting that combination, noted at paragraph 69 of the decision that it believed tensions between these two units would be reduced by a combination of the two units as artificial barriers between the units would be eliminated. In The Hydro Electric Commission of the City of Ottawa, [1994] OLRB Rep. April 516, tensions between two bargaining units were noted, but the Board was of the view that a combination would reduce the barriers between the units, barriers which had contributed to animosity between the units. We are in agreement with these decisions and, for the reasons articulated in the decisions cited above, are also of the view that combination in this case will facilitate better relations between the two bargaining units.
One of the labour relations problems identified by the employer was the difficulty which would be encountered in trying to meld the press and photomechanical craft language with the language of the mail room agreement. This was also an issue of concern to the employer in The Windsor Star case, cited above. We are of the view that the parties will be able to effectively address any such issues during negotiations. Having a diversity of employment interests is not an impediment to a combination application, (see Mississauga Hydro-Electric Commission, cited above, and The North Bay Nugget, cited above). As the Board noted in The Windsor Star, cited above, at paragraph 33, harmonizing the two collective agreements may require some creativity, but the potential for problems in fashioning a work jurisdiction clause does not amount to a serious labour relations problem.
It was argued before us that since GCIU 500M has relied on its traditional and historical craft rights in the past, it should not be permitted to combine its two craft units at this juncture. The evidence disclosed that the craft unions in the printing industry have been merging and amalgamating in the last thirty years to the point where there are very few "craft" unions left. The GCIU SOOM has itself. had a policy of seeking broader bargaining units wherever possible, and since the amendments to the Labour Relations Act in 1993, has been seeking to combine its bargaining units wherever possible.
The Board in The Windsor Star, cited above, addressed this issue as follows:
... Is the historical place of craft units in this industry, and/or under section 6(3) reason to refuse the order even if we are not obliged to refuse it? We think not. The Board had occasion to comment on the disadvantageous effects of craft based bargaining unit as early as 1946, when the then Chair of the Board, Jacob Finkelman, remarked on the atomization created by new craft units in The Steel Company of Canada, [1946] OLRB Rep., decision dated March 26, 1946. When confronted with a choice between craft-like fragmentation when not mandated by section 6(3) or the construction industry provisions, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances or the agreement of the parties, the Board has favoured broader based bargaining units. Whether in education, printing or elsewhere, departmental and classification based units have generally not been found to be appropriate. For some of the most oft-quoted decisions on this subject, see Kidd Creek Mines, [1986] OLRB Rep. 736, TV Guide, [1986] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1451, Hamilton Spectator, [1986] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1177, Toronto Board of Education, [1970] OLRB Rep. July 430 and more recently, The Board of Governors of The Salvation Army, cited above.
The newspaper industry was organized in a notoriously fragmented fashion. As the Board's jurisprudence shows, craft units were granted where the conditions of section 6(3) were met, as in Inland Publishing Co. Limited, [1968] OLRB Rep. Dec. 910 or where the historical practice of non-craft bargaining units was persuasive as to appropriateness under section 6(1). See for instance Hamilton Spectator, cited above. But as technological change blurred craft lines, organizing patterns changed somewhat, and the Board has sought to reduce the fragmentation in the industry where it has the opportunity. There is simply nothing before us that we find warrants stopping that trend at the border of section 7, particularly where the beneficiary of the special status, a craft union, is itself seeking combination with non-craft units.
We respectfully agree with the analysis cited above.
- Having considered all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that a combination order would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, would reduce fragmentation of bargaining units, and would not cause serious labour relations problems. For all of the above reasons, the two bargaining units are combined into one unit. We remain seized with regard to any further remedial relief.
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER W. A. CORRELL; July 27, 1995
I do not agree with the majority decision in this case for the following reasons.
I support the concepts that this local union 500M of the Graphic Communications International has enjoyed certain rights and privileges as a craft union. These rights and privileges were granted to them as a condition of their certification as a "craft" union.
These rights include control of membership in terms of the craft definition, preferential hiring rights, staffing schedules, apprenticeship and training programs. These and other rights and privileges are part of the bargaining unit definition which is the basic building block of the certification and the bargaining rights thereby granted to the certified union. This union now says thank you for that but times have changed and we want the rules to again be realigned in our favour. Not necessarily, it should be noted, in favour of the employees involved but in favour of the applicant union.
Notice must also be taken that the Board in its majority decision is listening to Local SOOM of this International union. What other new ideas or even status quo positions are to come forward from the International or its other local unions, only the future will tell.
Despite certain facts, the majority decision assumes that the combination of the two units will not result in serious labour relations problems and will facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining.
The facts are that there have been no serious labour relations problems to date and there has been a history of viable and stable collective bargaining. The old and ungrammatical adage states "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
While these facts are evident it was also found in the presentations to this Board that there is concern by the craft unit of the intrusion in to their workplace rights by mailroom employees. There occurs then concern of job security. Workplace stability is not likely to be enhanced by combining units of workers who have such concerns. This concern is noted in paragraph 22 of the majority decision.
A grievance by the applicant craft unit underlined these concerns and although later it was the subject of negotiations, it was not in the final analysis fully resolved.
It would certainly appear that the smaller unit of mailers will lose a good deal of their bargaining clout to the craft unit. The craft unit employees have exhibited their concerns about job security and a diminishment of their craft pride. These factors combined with the animosities between the two units now emerging will not contribute to stability in collective bargaining or ensure that serious labour relations problems will not emerge.
The observations in paragraphs 35 to 40 of the majority decision concerning the manner in which these difficulties will be avoided are simply naive conjecture. As a Board we cannot make such assumptions based purely on such logic.
Paragraph 34 of the majority decision states:
"These parties already have a history of bargaining amicably and there have been no strikes or lock-outs ... in the last 25 years."
I simply repeat my earlier comment: "if it ain't broke don't fix it". There needs to be a substantial
justification for change and I have yet to hear it.
- In my opinion the units should not be combined.