The Graphic Communications International Union Local N-1 v. The Windsor Star, A Division of Southam Inc.
[1995] OLRB Rep. May 714
2379-94-R; 2380-94-R The Graphic Communications International Union Local N-1, Applicant v. The Windsor Star, A Division of Southam Inc., Responding Party
BEFORE: K. G. O'Neil, Vice-Chair, and Board Members R. M. Sloan and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD K. G. O'NEIL, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK; May 10, 1995
This is an application for certification and a related application for combination of bargaining rights. The applicant will sometimes be referred to below as the GCIU or the union and the responding party as The Windsor Star, the publisher, or the employer.
When the matter first came on for hearing, the parties agreed that the Board should defer the determination of the combination application until the outcome of a representation vote agreed upon to determine the result of the certification application. The parties agreed that if the vote went in favour of the union, the Board would decide the combination application; if not, it would be unnecessary to do so. On agreement of the parties, the Board then heard the evidence and argument on the combination application and reserved our decision. The result of the agreed representation vote was that more than fifty percent of the votes were cast in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to certification in the unit on which the vote was held, i.e. the four person maintenance bargaining unit described as follows:
all employees of The Windsor Star, A Division of Southam Inc. in its maintenance department in the City of Windsor, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor and persons employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.
Clarity Note: For the purposes of clarity, the parties agree that the term supervisor includes foremen.
However, the union prefers to have this new unit combined with its two pre-existing bargaining units. Thus, it is necessary to consider the combination application.
What the union asks is that we combine the new maintenance unit, a departmental unit, with the other two bargaining units which it has represented for years, one composed of journeymen pressmen, which the parties refer to as a "craft" unit, and one composed of truck drivers. The union argues that all of the pre-conditions for combination set out in section 7 of the Act exist in the facts of this case and the Board should do what it can to reduce fragmentation in the newspaper industry. The publisher opposes the combination on the basis of its view that the pre-existing craft unit can only be combined with a unit of its own craft, in light of section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act. The employer says that the maintenance department, the newly certified group, is composed of cleaners and a machinist and is a non-craft bargaining unit which would not qualify for recognition under section 6(3). Further, it is asserted that there is no functional interaction or relationship between the skills or qualifications of the three groups and there is no greater work relationship between these units than a number of other bargaining units at the Windsor Star.
It is common ground that the pressmen's unit represented by the applicant could have been certified under section 6(3) as a craft unit but it is not necessary for the Board to determine that point. It was not certified, as its bargaining rights pre-date the Act. As for the truck drivers, although the parties assert it could be a craft unit for another union, there is no dispute that for this union it is a departmental bargaining unit since the union has no history of representing drivers. Since this summer there has only been one driver although at an earlier time there were six. The union services the two bargaining units together. There is one business agent for the two locals and membership and ratification meetings are held as a joint group. The maintenance group was not organized prior to this application.
Bargaining with the Windsor Star is done by a council of unions including the applicant, a sister local, GCIU Local 517, the Newspaper Guild, and the CAW. This is a cooperative arrangement currently accepted by all parties. Certain issues are dealt with together as a council, but issues particular to the various bargaining units are dealt with separately. Issues particular to the two bargaining units already represented by the applicant have been dealt with together at the same meeting with the employer. However, negotiations result in two collective agreements, albeit signed by the same people. Their provisions are substantially similar although there are differences, including the nature of the recognition clause.
All the GCIU members belong to the same pension plan. There are no plans for amalgamation of the two GCIU Locals and it is not something Local N-i could effect unilaterally.
The union maintains that the Board must be guided by section 7 and that the criteria the Board uses for appropriate bargaining units should not dictate the criteria for section 7. Referring to Cineplex Odeon, [1994] OLRB Rep. July 824, counsel says that the criteria for certification may well be different from those for combination applications.
The union's position is that there is nothing in section 7 which limits the Board's ability to combine craft units with other kinds of units. It argues that the Board should accept the application in light of the explicit intent of section 7 to break down fragmentation together with the Board's general preference to have employees bargain more broadly in larger bargaining units.
The union does not dispute that there are peculiar provisions in the collective agreements in regards to drivers or pressmen, but counsel maintains that it is more important that the two groups act, bargain and conduct labour relations together and have done so for years.
Union counsel further argues that the history of this bargaining relationship has broken down any sharp distinction between craft and non-craft units. He says there is no question it would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining as interpreted by the Board in cases such as Mississauga Hydro-Electric Commission, [1993] OLRB Rep. June 523, The Hudsons Bay Company, [1993] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1042 and North Bay Nugget, [1994] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1137. For instance, counsel underlines that the Board has found that there is no need for any problem to exist with the current structure of collective bargaining to find that combining would further viable collective bargaining.
Counsel agrees that it would be better if there was combination possible beyond the three available units, for instance with the other GCIU local. However, counsel refers to the wording of the Act, which provides that it can only occur where the units are represented by the same union. For this purpose, it was not disputed that the two GCIU locals are separate unions. The fact that the applicant local can not force amalgamation should not stand in the way of what the Board could do on this application which is aimed at breaking down artificial barriers, in the union's submission.
Employer counsel stressed his view that the mandatory language of section 6(3), deeming what is an appropriate unit, means that these units are not able to be combined. Counsel argues that the retention of section 6(3) indicates a legislative statement that the policy in support of craft units remain, and that smaller units will thus remain a feature of industries with a craft base. He asserts that a union that is still accepting the benefits of craft unionism ought also have to accept the restrictions. Looking at the collective agreements, counsel underlines the peculiarities of a craft agreement, e.g. there is no actual bargaining unit description while the trade description is set out quite fully. Further, the craft nature of the pressmen's agreement obliges the union to furnish competent journeymen members and the employer acts through a foreman who himself is a member of the same local. Counsel noted various other peculiar conditions in the pressmen's collective agreement that protect the union's craft status, and argued that the reason for. these provisions is that there are skills associated with the trades which are not present in unskilled occupations such as in the maintenance department.
In general, employer counsel says that there is no evidence of any greater efficiency, stability or any benefit that will flow from a combination order. He suggests that there is no down side in the current situation and none of the problems present in cases like Board of Governors of the Salvation Army, [1994] OLRB Rep. Jan. 85 have been shown to exist in this workplace.
Employer counsel submits that there would be serious labour relations problems if the jurisdictional clause for pressmen rather than just a maintenance worker recognition clause was in play in a work assignment dispute with the mailers.
In reply, union counsel says that the parties have a fundamental disagreement about the interrelation of section 6(3) and section 7. Counsel does not accept the proposition that any group that initially organized on craft grounds is tied to craft status forever and can never be combined with others. He says the mandatory aspect of section 6(3) only applies to applications for certification and the description of the bargaining unit and that it is not necessarily applicable to the Board's discretion under section 7. He observes that any bargaining unit that is being asked to be the subject of combination order was at one time deemed by the Board or the parties to be appropriate. Counsel submits that the purpose of section 7 is not to define what bargaining units are appropriate necessarily, but to see if broader based bargaining is possible where more than one unit is represented by the same bargaining agent. He says that there may be eases in which the craft factors mean a combination order is not appropriate, but in this situation there is no serious labour relations problem created by the combination sought.
Decision
- This application squarely raises (for the first time) the interaction between section 6(3) which deems craft units to be appropriate in certain circumstances and section 7 which permits the Board to combine bargaining units under certain conditions. Section 6(3) and section 7 provide 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.
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.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) that is considered together with an application for certification, the Board may do the following:
Combine the bargaining unit to which the certification application relates with one or more existing bargaining units if the certification application is made by the trade union that represents the employees in those existing bargaining units.
Combine the bargaining unit to which the certification application relates with other proposed bargaining units if the certification application is made by the trade union applying for certification for the other proposed bargaining units.
Combine the bargaining unit to which the certification application relates with both existing and proposed bargaining units if the certification application is made by the trade union that represents the employees in those existing bargaining units and that has applied for certification for the other proposed bargaining units.
(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.
(4) In the case of manufacturing operations, the Board shall not combine bargaining units of employees at two or more geographically separate places of operations if the Board considers that a combined bargaining unit is inappropriate because the employer has established that combining the units will interfere unduly with,
(a) the employer's ability to continue significantly different methods of operation or production at each of those places; or
(b) the employer's ability to continue to operate those places as viable and independent businesses.
(5) In combining bargaining units, the Board may amend any certificate or any provision of a collective agreement and may make such other orders as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(6) This section does not apply with respect to bargaining units in the construction industry.
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. 182). 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.
Firstly, would the proposed combination facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining? We are of the view that it would, for a number of reasons. At the moment there is only one person in the trucking bargaining unit, by definition under section 6(1) not a unit for collective bargaining which could have been certified. It is not one we find particularly viable over the long term (although we observe that from time to time many bargaining units have only one person in them for a variety of reasons).
Bargaining has been quite stable at the Windsor Star for many years. Negotiations have been at times prolonged, but there have been no strikes in the last twenty years. There is a council structure for bargaining in place that has contributed to this stability. The evidence indicated that the council structure mitigates the problems created by the historically fragmented structure of printing industry bargaining units. However, consolidating the units represented by this local would no doubt make the base for bargaining even more stable. Formalizing one "chunk" of the council makes discord that much less likely at the negotiating table. Reducing the two collective agreements currently negotiated to one, and removing the likelihood of a third, as would be the case with the certification of the new unit, would also make bargaining less onerous, and therefore more viable. Administration of one collective agreement rather than three is likely to favour stability as well. It also removes the potential for more than one period when work disruption is legal, although it appears all the current collective agreements at the Windsor Star have the same term at the moment.
The employer argued that since the system was already working well, there was no evidence that the change would make the system more viable or stable. This is a theme that has been sounded by parties opposing combination orders in several of the cases before the Board. We agree with and adopt the reasoning of the Board in previous cases to the effect that it is not necessary to establish some problem with the status quo. See for instance the following remarks of the Board in Mississauga Hydro, cited above:
We find it instructive as well that the language of section 7(3) does not suggest that the combination of units is to be resorted to only as a remedy for a problem of some kind. A comparison with the phrasing of other provisions such as section 41(2) highlights this difference. That section sets out criteria which must be met for the Board (as opposed to the Minister) to direct the arbitration of a first contract. Included is a stipulation that the collective bargaining process has been unsuccessful for a number of reasons, including several identified problematic situations. This somewhat more remedial focus is absent from section 7.
In addition, section 7(3) uses words like "the extent to which", "facilitate" and "reduce". "Facilitate" is defined in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1978) as "to render easier; to promote, help forward". This language suggests that it is not necessary to establish an existing problem to succeed in an application, but only that the combined unit might make viable and stable bargaining easier, for example. We note as well that section 7(3)(b) refers only to fragmentation, and not undue fragmentation. This also implies a fairly low threshold for an applicant.
See, similarly The Hudsons Bay Company, and The North Bay Nugget, cited above.
There was also a suggestion that the combination might make jurisdictional disputes more likely, leading to less stable labour relations. We will deal with this point below under the rubric of serious labour relations problems.
Would the combination reduce fragmentation? Yes, and this was not disputed. The combined unit would only have fourteen people in it in total, but this is less fragmented than the alternative, a pressmen unit of ten, a maintenance unit of four, and one driver on his own. However, the employer is of the view that section 6(3) requires that fragmentation be maintained when it comes to craft units. Counsel notes that the trucker and the maintenance unit could be combined without this particular problem.
As we have noted above, we are not of the view that the mandatory language of 6(3) applies to section 7, or the legislature would have included it in the list of matters that the Board is obliged to consider. Even if it were, it is clear that the mandatory language is only operative on the application of a craft union for a craft unit. This is an application by a craft union, but not for a craft unit. And we are not persuaded that it is good labour relations policy to support the notion that a craft union should be forced to continue to bargain only on a craft basis, at least outside of the construction industry.
Would the combination cause serious labour relations problems? We will address the areas raised by the employer in evidence and argument in turn.
The machinist who is part of the newly certifiable maintenance unit sometimes does maintenance in the mailing room. The mailing room bargaining unit has the potential to claim the maintenance work as part of their jurisdiction over the mailing room equipment. This potential has existed apparently for at least ten years, without coming to a head. The employer argues that there is a greater chance that the mailing room bargaining unit would "push" the issue of maintenance if the maintenance workers were organized with another craft. We do not accept that this is necessarily so. In fact, the opportunity to negotiate language surrounding this issue may provide an occasion to eliminate any latent potential for a jurisdictional dispute. There was some suggestion by the employer that the existence of the pressmen's craft language would more likely create a problem where none had been before, with the mailroom's craft jurisdiction, but we are not persuaded that the combination order would have that effect, or that the council structure would cease to be able to deal with any brewing problem.
The Board heard a considerable amount of evidence about the interaction or lack thereof of the workers in the three bargaining units. It is not necessary to detail that here. Suffice it to say, that except on an intermittent basis, there is not a great deal of interchange, and there may be more interchange with other bargaining units, including some units represented by the applicant's sister local. Nonetheless, although the members of the proposed bargaining unit do not all work directly together, people have moved from the drivers job to the pressmen bargaining unit in the past. We do not see the low level of interchange as creating a serious labour relations problem, particularly as the drivers and the pressmen have bargained through the same local and within the same council structure, for years, without any problem of which we heard any evidence.
Moreover, there is no discordance in the interests of the three groups. They all work at or out of the same building, and are subject to the same managerial structure above the level of first line supervision. Although employer counsel argued that there were no facts supporting community of interest, there is a general community of interest in all employees working for the same employer, and there is no evidence before us of any particular problem in grouping these locals together. As well, the recent jurisprudence of the Board has pointed out that community of interest as earlier defined no longer plays such a predominant role in the definition of bargaining units. See for instance, The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, cited above. The legislative direction to consider the reduction of fragmentation is an endorsement of the Board's now longstanding approach to define community of interest on a base broader than that of the department level. The result asked for by the employer would leave community of interest effectively defined at the department level.
Referring to Premark Canada Inc., [1993] OLRB Rep. June 540 and Kingston Access Bus, [1993] OLRB Rep. July 610, employer counsel argued that the fundamental thread discernible in the cases previously decided by the Board is that the combined units were doing the same work while that is not the case here. The evidence discloses that there is considerable diversity of work within the maintenance unit and compared to other units. One employee in the maintenance unit is a cleaner, one deals primarily with inserts, another with recyclable material, and the fourth is a machinist who may be called upon to deal with machinery throughout the operation. As well, they do not all report to the same foreman. It is clear that the work is quite different from that of the drivers and pressmen as well. However, diversity of work is not a barrier to a combination order, as for instance in Mississauga Hydro-Electric Commission, cited above, where office and outside units covering a great variety of classifications were made the subject of a combination order. See also The North Bay Nugget, cited above, a newspaper case, where the result of the combination order was an all-employee unit including the production and non-production units. Although separate bargaining units of employees doing the same work may create the most compelling case for combination, there is nothing in section 7 which limits combination to such fact situations.
The employer is also concerned about the parties' ability to harmonize the two collective agreements where one has craft language in the work jurisdiction clause. Although this may require some creativity, there is no reason to believe that it amounts to a serious labour relations problem that would require the refusal of an otherwise sound combination order. The existence throughout the province of collective agreements covering both people who exercise trade skills and those that do not makes it clear that this is not an insurmountable obstacle. As well, the fact that the drivers' collective agreement has some language more frequently found in craft collective agreements such as an obligation on the union to supply workers, as well as a provision that the foreman be a member of the union, may make it less difficult to manage this aspect of the implementation of a combination order.
Further, the fact that this is the first case in which the Board has been asked to combine
a craft unit with non-craft units is not a factor which would cause us to refuse an otherwise appropriate combination order.
- Given the above considerations, we conclude that the mandatory considerations favour
the combination order, as we are of the view that the combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, reduce fragmentation of bargaining units and would not cause serious labour relations problems. 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, 46 CLLC ¶16,463, 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, The Spectator, [1981] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1177, Toronto Board of Education, [1986] OLRB Rep. June 900 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.
For all the above reasons, the three bargaining units are combined into one.
The Board remits the matter to the parties to deal with the implementation of this order, including the wording of the description of the combined bargaining unit, but remains seized to deal with any problems the parties are unable to resolve themselves. The Manager of Field Services is hereby authorized to provide the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer in resolving these matters.
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER R. M. SLOAN; May 10, 1995
I cannot agree with the decision of my colleagues.
For decades the Graphic Communications International Union Local 1 (and/or its predecessors) has worked under the provisions of the Labour Relations Act and enjoyed the distinct rights and privileges that the legislation bestowed upon those unions to whom the current section 6(3) (and its forerunners) bestow.
The Bill 40 legislation enacted on 1 January, 1993 changed nothing with respect to section 6(3) and this can only be construed as a deliberate decision on the part of the legislature not to tamper with a long established practice of recognizing the uniqueness of craft units in the industrial (as opposed to construction) setting.
The unique rights granted under the mandatory provisions of section 6(3) include the right to unilaterally control: who gains entry into the union; what the form and content of the apprenticeship training will be; and the staffing of enterprises through a hiring hall. In addition the manning levels are subject to negotiation - all of which clearly distinguish the craft unit.
The applicant is a craft union and it is clearly inappropriate, in view of its having operated and functioned for decades on the basis of being a distinctly craft unit, to now ask the Board, in effect, to ignore section 6(3) and declare this heretofore craft unit as a regular industrial unit admitting into membership employees who are clearly prohibited under the provisions of section 6(3).
I agree with counsel for the employer that the language of section 6(3), not altered under Bill 40, requires a bargaining unit under the mandatory section 6(3) to be and remain a craft unit and that it cannot dilute that unit for mere convenience purposes by accepting members whose job function requirements, in the newspaper industry, are at the lower and unrelated end of the skills spectrum.
It makes no sense, in my view, to combine industrial type jobs into the craft unit when the craft collective agreement has no applicability whatsoever to the bargaining units defined in the maintenance and truck driver bargaining unit descriptions. A completely new collective agreement will have to be drawn up to accommodate the maintenance bargaining unit, unless of course the combination of bargaining units is limited to the maintenance department unit and the truck drivers unit.
The bargaining practice at the Windsor Star where all the different unions and locals bargain in effect as one "unit" disposes forcefully of the fragmentation argument.
I further agree with counsel for the respondent that once a union is a recognized craft union - and functions as such under the provisions of section 6(3) it is precluded from access to section 7. What the applicant seeks here, and what regrettably is granted by the majority decision, is to maintain its craft status while absorbing into the craft bargaining unit a very small group of employees who are readily distinguishable from those employees in the craft unit in terms of their skills.
The minority industrial group of employees thus absorbed will be totally lost in the craft unit and will have great difficulty in establishing any meaningful bargaining presence.
Under section 7(3) the Board must consider a number of factors with respect to combining bargaining units. It is my strongly held view that:
a) the combining of the industrial and craft bargaining units would inhibit viable and stable collective bargaining;
b) the combining of the industrial and craft bargaining units would not, under the circumstances of this case, reduce fragmentation, as fragmentation - as we have come to understand the term - is not at issue here, and,
c) the combining of the industrial and craft bargaining units would cause senous labour relations problems when attempts are made to integrate the industrial group of employees into the craft unit. The extent of this problem becomes immediately obvious by even a cursory perusal of the craft agreement and its very unique and restrictive provisions.
If there is no fragmentation, and collective bargaining will not be enhanced or furthered by combining the three units, then why inject a foreign element into the work place which, in my view, presents the real potential for labour relations complications.
I believe that the Board would have ideally served the interests of both the union and the employer by restricting its combination of bargaining units decision to the two "industrial" units, viz, the truck drivers and the maintenance department. The two industrial units can readily be accommodated in a single collective agreement, but the craft unit must clearly stand alone.