Hank Brouwers v. Canadian Union of Shinglers and Allied Workers, 1995 CanLII 9939

Hank Brouwers v. Canadian Union of Shinglers and Allied Workers

[1995] OLRB Rep. September 1160

1981-95-M Hank Brouwers, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Shinglers and Allied Workers, Responding Party

BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members F. B. Reaume and G. McMenemy.

APPEARANCES: Carolyn Hart and Hank Brouwers for the applicant; M. G. Horan and Robert Shewell for the responding party.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 5, 1995

1This is an application for interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act. The request for interim relief relates to a section 91 complaint in Board File No. 1980-95-U alleg­ing the responding party has violated section 71 and section 82 of the Act. Sections 71 and 82 pro­vide as follows:

71. No person, trade union or employers' organization shall seek by intimidation or coercion to compel any person to become or refrain from becoming or to continue to be or to cease to be a member of a trade union or of an employers' organization or to refrain from exercising any other rights under this Act or from performing any obligations under this Act.

82.-(1) No employer, employers' organization or person acting on behalf of an employer or employers' organization shall,

(a) refuse to employ or continue to employ a person;

(b) threaten dismissal or otherwise threaten a person;

(c) discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condi­tion of employment; or

(d) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person,

because of a belief that the person may testify in a proceeding under this Act or because the per­son has made or is about to make a disclosure that may be required in a proceeding under this Act or because the person has made an application or filed a complaint under this Act or has participated in or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Act.

(2) No trade union, council of trade unions or person acting on behalf of a trade union or coun­cil of trade unions shall,

(a) discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condi­tion of employment; or

(b) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person.

because of a belief that the person may testify in a proceeding under this Act or because the per­son has made or is about to make a disclosure that may be required in a proceeding under this Act or because the person has made an application or filed a complaint under this Act or has participated in or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Act.

2For ease of reference we will refer to the responding party as CUSAW.

3The parties submitted detailed briefs and declarations. The Board reviewed the written material, the cases cited and the oral submissions and made the following ruling at the hearing on August 24, 1995:

"This is a bottom line oral decision with more detailed written reasons to follow.

The Board has considered all of the parties' submissions and we are persuaded that in these cir­cumstances it is appropriate to make the follow interim orders:

(1) the responding party is prohibited from proceeding with a trial of Hank Brouwers or any members of his crew, or firing, suspending or otherwise penalizing Hank Brouwers or any members of his crew in connection with a failure to pay back dues for years previous to i995 pending the outcome of the section 91 complaint in Board File No. 1980-95-U; and

(2) the responding party is ordered to post the Board's decision together with the Board's notice of the rights and protections afforded to union members under the Act and to witnesses and persons who initiate or participate in proceedings at the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Act, at a prominent location in its office or offices where it will come to the attention of the union members.

This decision does not in any way reflect on the merits of the section 91 complaint or on the union's right to conduct its affairs pursuant to its constitution and bylaws."

4The Board's reasons are set out below.

5Hank Brouwers is one of the applicants in a number of proceedings before the Board alleging CUSAW is not a trade union, that CUSAW is either an organization of employers or an organization dominated by employers, that CUSAW's agreements are void due to employer sup­port, that CUSAW obtained membership evidence through intimidation, coercion and misrepre­sentation and if CUSAW is a trade union it has breached its duty of fair representation. There are allegations of harassment and intimidation with respect to a CUSAW membership meeting at the Howard Johnson Hotel on April 8, 1995. The above allegations are the subject of Board Files 0014-95-R, an application to terminate bargaining rights, 0013-95-U and 0214-95-U.

6The decisions of the Board chaired by Vice-Chair Herman, dated May 19, 1995 and chaired by Vice-Chair Surdykowski, dated July 7, 1995, set out some of the troublesome history of the parties. Paragraph 4 of the Surdykowski decision of July 7th states:

This is far from a typical section 61 proceeding. Generally, such a proceeding simply involves an attempt by one or more employees to terminate a voluntary recognition or collective agreement between an employer and a trade union. However, this application has been brought against the backdrop of a general campaign by the Labourers' International Union of North America or one of its Locals to displace the CUSAW as the representative of persons engaged in the appli­cation of shingles and other roofing materials in new subdivisions in the residential sector of the construction industry, as defined in what purports to be a collective agreement between the CUSAW and a number of roofing contractors, in this case specifically Chislett Asphalt Roofing Ltd. ("Chislett") and Dominion Sheet Metal & Roofing Works ("Dominion") in Board Areas 8, 9, 18, 26 and 27. Further, in addition to alleging that the CUSAW is not entitled to represent the persons covered by the purported collective agreement(s), the applicants allege that the CUSAW was not a "trade union" within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act at the time the voluntary recognition agreements or collective agreements were entered into, and that it is not now such a "trade union" either, because it is an organization of or dominated by employ­ers. In the alternative, the applicants allege that the CUSAW has received employer support from the roofing contractors, such that any agreement between the CUSAW and any such employer, specifically in this case Chislett and Dominion, should be deemed not to be a collec­tive agreement for purposes of the Act, pursuant to section 49 of the Act.

7The Herman decision directs the contractors to continue making all remittances required under the collective agreements and the administrator to continue to utilize the funds or payments as required under the various agreements and trust agreements.

8Some of the following facts are not in dispute. Where there is disagreement on the facts the Board has set out the positions of the parties. Hank Brouwers has been charged under the union's By-Law No. 1. A trial was scheduled for August 11th and adjourned on agreement to August 25, 1995. The Trial Board would consist of six CUSAW members, three members chosen by Brouwers. In the event of a deadlock, Robert Shewell would cast the deciding vote. Robert Shewell is the President of CUSAW. The charges were brought by two members of CUSAW, Chris Rhynold and Chuck King. The charges were contained in two typed, identical letters, set up, it appears, as form letters with blank spaces as follows: member's name: ________ and C.U.S.A.W. Membership Card No: _______. These blank spaces were completed in handwriting indicating the name and card number. The letters were on blank paper and did not indicate any addresses. The letters were identical in content listing seven persons and amounts of outstanding union back dues from 1994. The applicant and the declarants (members of Hank Brouwers' crew) do not agree with this assessment.

9It is agreed that Brouwers does not personally owe any back dues and that the persons referred to in the letters of July 13th were working on his crew. In response to questions from the Board CUSAW indicated that the employer, the crew leader and the individual are jointly and sev­erally responsible for making sure dues are paid up to date and that members are in good standing. Article 4.01(a) of the collective agreement requires employees to maintain union membership while working within the bargaining unit. The crew leaders are employees covered by the collective agreement.

10The By-Law under Article 1 states:

1. MEMBERSHIP

1.1 Application for membership in the Union must be in writing and must be accompa­nied by an initiation fee of Four Hundred ($400.00) dollars. Such membership may be indefinite in nature or limited in time intervals e.g.. a six month membership and upon such terms as may be determined by the Board from time to time.

1.2 Dues shall be paid commencing with the month in which application for membership is received. The amount of monthly dues shall be as set by the Board. Provided that monthly dues are received no later than the last day of the month to which they apply, a member shall not be considered delinquent.

1.3 Dues shall be calculated January 1st through December 31st and all back dues arising out of any year shall be paid by no later than January 31st of the following year, unless otherwise stated in writing by the Union.

1.4 As soon as a member becomes delinquent in his dues for more than six (6) months, he shall be automatically expelled from membership in the Union. Expulsion shall result in disqualification of all privileges and benefits in the Union including the right to work pursuant to a collective agreement with the Union and of the right to participate and vote in the proceedings in the Union. Reinstatement in the Union shall only occur when the said member pays all outstanding back dues as well as a new initiation fee.

1.5 For the purposes of this by-law "a member in good standing of the Union" shall mean a member who is not under suspension and who owes no dues, fines or other fees to the Union.

1.6 It is the sole responsibility of each member to know his current standing in the Union with respect to, but not limited to, back dues and benefit plan eligibility.

1.7 An additional amount of 4% of weekly gross payments from employers to members for work performed on or after April 1st, 1995 will be paid in respect of a cost of liv­ing adjustment. These amounts shall be remitted to the Benefit Plan Administrator and shall be paid to the member twice per year. Any member who is not in good standing at the time of the semi-annual payment will not receive his payment until all back dues are paid.

Article No. 5 of the By-Law provides:

5. TRIALS AND APPEALS

5.1 The basis for charge against any member or officer for which he or she shall stand trial shall consist of the following.

(10) Using the services of any suspended member or any non-member, with the exception of a non-member who is over 70 years of age.

(14) Such other acts and conduct which are inconsistent with the duties and obli­gations of a member of the Union including crew leaders failure to ensure that any person hired is a member in good standing.

11There is disagreement between the parties as to how the decision was made that back dues were owing. It appears some changes took place with respect to monthly dues. Harold Biso's declaration in paragraph 9 states that the members of CUSAW voted in 1994 to return the dues to $520.00 per year (from $400.00 per year). However, there do not appear to be any formal minutes recording this change.

12The responding party denies that any intimation took place at the April 8, 1995 meeting or that Brouwers was prevented from speaking. Tom Biso, Business Representative of CUSAW, in paragraph 6 of his declaration denies that there was any violence or harassment stating:

If Brouwers and White were intimidated, it was due to the impact of their comments on the members and not due to anything initiated by myself or any of the Executive Board."

13Tom Biso's declaration continues explaining his understanding of the back dues situa­tion with respect to Brouwers' crew:

June 16, 1995

7. At the request of the Executive Board I visited a job site on June 16, 1995 where Brouwers was working. My specific instructions were not to harass Brouwers or his crew, but to simply determine who was working on the job site. I complied with those instructions.

8. At the site members of Brouwers' crew told me that they hoped that they wouldn't be pun­ished for what Brouwers was doing. I told them that no one was being punished, but CUSAW expected that back dues for all members would be paid.

9. Some of Brouwers' crew also told me that they did not want to work for Brouwers because of the way he had paid them in the past. I advised them that if they did not want to work as part of Brouwers' crew, CUSAW would try to get them work on another crew. This is no more and no less than CUSAW would do for any of its members who are out of work.

10. A number of Brouwers' crew still have not paid their back dues. As a result of what was said to Harold Biso, and my communications with them I believe they have not paid these dues because they are being threatened by Brouwers.

II. At no time did I threaten or harass Brouwers or any member of his crew.

August 2, 1995

12. 1 visited Brouwers' job site again on August 2, 1995. At this time, Brouwers advised me that he had told his crew members not to pay their dues until the Labour Board made its decision in the hearing of the applications described in paragraph 2.

13. I told Brouwers that the dues must be paid to maintain the status quo as required by the Labour Board. Brouwers told me that nothing would be done until we got a Labour Board deci­sion.

14. To my knowledge to this date, Brouwers has refused to require his crew to pay their back dues and continued to use members who are not in good standing on his job sites.

Charges against Hank Brouwers

15. I have been advised that charges were laid against Hank Brouwers in good faith because members of CUSAW are angry that Brouwers continues to employ members who are not in good standing while a great number of members who are in good standing having paid their dues are not necessarily receiving work.

16. I believe that CUSAW has proceeded against Brouwers in good faith and that Brouwers will receive a fair trial on August 25, 1995.

14Harold (Butch) Biso, Vice-President on the Executive Board of CUSAW in his declara­tion in paragraphs 12-16 explains what took place with respect to the back dues:

12. In mid-January of 1995, each member of CUSAW working for a company subject to a CUSAW collective agreement received a notice inserted in their pay cheques which advised that all outstanding back dues must be paid in full by February 28, 1995. The notice also advised the members that if back dues remained unpaid, the member would not be in good standing and companies would be unable to supply the member with work. This Notice is attached as Exhibit 1 to my Declaration.

13. At the end of January 1995, all companies who employ CUSAW members were further advised that as of February 28, 1995 all back dues for 1994 were to be paid and that if members did not pay, they would be considered "members not in good standing." The notice further advised the companies that non-members should not be working on the job site as both the com­pany and the crew leader would be subjected to a fines and liquidated damages. This Notice is attached as Exhibit 2 to my Declaration.

14. In the month of February 1995, each member of CUSAW was advised, on two occasions through notices inserted in their pay cheques, that the deadline for the payment of back dues was extended to March 31, 1995 due to the tough economic times. These Notices are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 to my Declaration.

15. It is CUSAW's practice to take sanctions against members who refuse to pay their back dues. In the past, this has included imposing fines upon members who continue to work but refuse to pay back dues.

16. Generally, when a member receives notice of back dues owing, the member stops working until the back dues are paid. If back dues remain unpaid and the member continues working, fines and further sanctions may be taken.

15It was agreed that this was the first trial ever scheduled by CUSAW. It was also agreed that only Brouwers was charged, not the members working on his crew. Brouwers himself did not owe any back dues. There are no submissions or documents showing that any grievances were filed against any of the employers regarding members who are not in good standing working on their jobsites.

16Harold Biso in his declaration explained CUSAW's concern about laying charges in light of the ongoing hearings before the Board:

19. Because of the ongoing hearings before the Labour Relations Board, CUSAW did not pro­ceed against Brouwers except to advise him not to use those members of his crew who were not in good standing due to back dues owed to CUSAW. CUSAW advised Brouwers specifically which members of his crew owed back dues. However, despite this knowledge, Brouwers con­tinued and continues to date to use members who are not in good standing in his crews.

20. Brouwers was again advised by myself and other members of the CUSAW Executive Board during the hearing before the Labour Relations Board to stop using members who are not in good standing in his crews.

21. On the day Brouwers brought his crew to the hearing, some of his crew told me that Brou­wers had threatened them that if they paid their back dues, they would either be left home or fired. Based on this information, I believe that the members of Brouwers crew fear for their jobs because of Brouwers control over their livelihood.

22. In July of 1995, two members in good standing, Chris Rhynold and Chuck King, came by the CUSAW office and asked what was up with Hank. As of this time, it was common knowl­edge within the membership that some of Brouwers' crew owed back dues, refused to pay them and flaunted this fact in the face of the Executive Board. CUSAW is a small organization and Brouwers had become notorious because of his flagrant disregard of CUSAW's rules.

23. These members expressed to me their concern that Brouwers was using members who were not in good standing on his job sites while other members who had paid all their dues were not receiving any work.

24. I advised these members that Brouwers' crew was still on the job site although some of them owed back dues. I further advised these members that the Executive Board had been reluctant to lay charges against Brouwers due to the ongoing hearing before the Labour Relations Board.

25. The response of these two members to this information was that they personally wanted to lay charges themselves, as individual members. Each member has this right under the CUSAW constitution.

26. As a result, in accordance with its Constitution and by-laws, CUSAW proceeded with charges against Brouwers. A copy of the by-laws is attached as Exhibit 5 to my Declaration.

27. To ensure that Brouwers would receive a fair hearing, CUSAW executive provided Brou­wers with a formal charge statement and a trial date. Brouwers was advised of his right to appoint 3 persons to the 6 person trial board.

28. In response to a request from Brouwers' counsel, CUSAW accommodated Brouwers by agreeing to hold the trial at a neutral site, by providing Brouwers with particulars and be post­poning the trial for two weeks,

29. I previously assured Brouwers and his counsel that the only persons in attendance at the trial will be those personally involved in the proceeding: the members of the trial board and any wit­nesses.

30. CUSAW is not proceeding with this trial against Brouwers because of his involvement in proceedings before the Labour Relations Board. In fact, CUSAW deliberately declined to pro­ceed against Brouwers, despite having the ability to do so under its by-laws, because of these proceedings. However, when compelled to proceed under its by-laws and the request of two members, CUSAW has done everything possible to ensure that Brouwers will receive a fair hearing.

17It is Harold Biso's belief, after talking to Brouwers and his crew, that Brouwers assumes because of his involvement in Board proceedings that he can breach all of CUSAW's by­laws without any repercussions. Paragraphs 32 to 38 state:

32. Examples of Brouwers flagrant conduct include comments made to the CUSAW executive including myself during a day of hearing at the Labour Relations Board by Brouwers' crew members that he had advised his crew that if they paid their back dues he would leave them at home or make sure that they were fired.

33. Brouwers is very vocal in his defiance of CUSAW by-laws amongst his crew and the mem­bership in general. As a result, it was common knowledge, that some of his men owed back dues and that he refused to allow his men to pay them.

34. This is the first time in CUSAW history that a trial has been convened into charges laid by members. In all pervious cases, members paid up or complied with the by-laws of CUSAW so that no trial was necessary. It is only Brouwers own continued failure to pay monies owed to CUSAW which has necessitated this trial.

35. The trial scheduled for August 25, 1995 has become critical given Brouwers constant attempts to attack the credibility and undermine the authority of the Executive Board.

36. CUSAW has proceeded with charges against Brouwers because of the order of Vice-Chair Herman of the Labour Relations Board dated May 19, 1995 which requires all parties to hear­ings before the Board to maintain the status quo.

37. In this case the status quo requires the payment of back dues owed.

38. Based on his own admission in the material filed, Brouwers does not deny that he has throughout the period from April 1, 1995 to date continued to use members not in good stand­ing in his crew while other members have not received work.

18Exhibit 4 of the responding party's brief is a notice which reads as follows:

TO BE INSERTED IN ALL

MEMBERS PAY CHEQUES

THIS MEMO HAS BEEN PREPARED

TO INFORM ALL MEMBERS THAT

AS OF MAR 3 1/95 ALL

OUTSTANDING BACK DUES MUST

BE PAID IN FULL.

IF THE BACK DUES REMAIN

UNPAID, THE MEMBER WILL

NOT BE IN GOOD STANDING

WHICH MEANS HE WILL NOT BE

ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS AND

COMPANIES WILL BE UNABLE TO

SUPPLY HIM WITH WORK!!!

("Harold Biso")

Harold Biso, Vice President

19In its interim relief application counsel for the applicant requests the Board to order CUSAW to delay the trial of Brouwers until the main application in Board File No. 1980-95-U alleging a violation of sections 71 and 82 of the Act has been decided. The applicant requests this relief only with respect to outstanding dues prior to 1995. The applicant is concerned that this trial may be perceived to be in retaliation for the complaints/applications filed by Brouwers and would affect the ability or willingness of witnesses to come forward to give their evidence in any of the proceedings. The applicant believes the charges and the trial are designed to interfere with his rights under the Labour Relations Act.

20The responding party has a deeply felt concern that in the context of the proceedings before the Board and the raiding being conducted by the Labourers, it is critical that it can conduct its affairs without interference in what is an internal matter. The responding party asserts it would suffer labour relations harm if this interim order is granted. The responding party asserts this interim relief would prevent CUSAW from managing its membership and nullify a "crucial aspect of CUSAW's internal constitution." The interim relief, even a less restrictive interim relief, would affect the rights of all CUSAW members and would indicate that CUSAW lacks the ability to enforce its own by-laws and will be an invitation to employees in the collateral proceedings to flaunt the Board's status quo order as the responding party understands the Herman decision.

21The Board is aware that these are extremely troublesome times for all the parties. The Herman and Surdykowski decisions set out the difficulties the parties are facing and the uncer­tainty faced by the industry. The Herman decision deals with employer remittances and the neces­sity of the industry to continue to operate under the various collective agreements. It does not address the issue of dues owing from 1994. Vice-Chair Surdykowski in his decision comments on the proceedings by saying:

“…..I am not overstating it when 1 say that the proceedings in this application to date have been fiercely adversarial, as evidenced by the number of objections, the comments and interjections which have been made, the manner and tone of these, and the emotional approach all parties have taken." ...

22Charges were laid only against Mr. Brouwers notwithstanding the individual members own responsibility for their dues and the employer's responsibility to employ persons in good standing. Charging Brouwers only appears to be inconsistent with CUSAW's by-law paragraph 1.6 setting out the "sole responsibility of each member to know his current standing in the Union with respect to, but not limited to, back dues and benefit plan eligibility." Harold (Butch) Biso in his declaration in paragraph 13 describes how members are advised to pay back dues and if members do not pay they would not be in good standing and companies would be unable to supply them with work. Companies were advised that non-members ("members not in good standing") should not be working on the site as both the company and the crew leader would be subject to fines and liqui­dated damages. This information was conveyed by letter to all companies regarding outstanding back dues dated January 30, 1995 (Exhibit 2). Paragraph 15 of Harold Biso's declaration states it is CUSAW's practice to take sanctions against members who refuse to pay their back dues. It appears that no sanctions were taken against the members on Brouwers' crew. No sanctions appear to have been taken against the employer(s) - If CUSAW wishes to maintain the status quo, as they under­stand the Herman decision, by requiring the payment of back dues owed, it seems somewhat puz­zling that Brouwers who it is agreed does not owe any back dues, is the only one being charged. There are no sanctions or charges against the individuals who are alleged to owe dues prior to 1995 and the employers who are said to be employing members not in good standing. The Board does understand that in this industry the crew leader holds a unique position and recognizes that the crew leader bears some responsibility for ensuring the members working on his crew are "members in good standing". However there is no explanation as to why no action was taken against the employer(s) and the members who appear to be in violation of the collective agreement.

23It is not clear from Harold Biso's reference in paragraph 34 of his declaration what monies are owed by Hank Brouwers. The declaration states "Brouwers continued failure to pay monies owed to CUSAW". It is agreed Brouwers does not owe any dues for 1994 and from the materials filed there do not appear to be any outstanding dues or fines owed by Brouwers person­ally.

24The applicant's concerns regarding the perception of potential witnesses that he (Brou­wers) is being singled out because of his involvement in these Board proceedings is not unreason­able. Mr. Brouwers' apprehension, assuming his allegations in the section 91 complaint are true and provable, is not unreasonable. CUSAW's concerns with respect to their ability to effectively conduct their internal union affairs in light of a very difficult situation is not unreasonable. How­ever, the potential harm to CUSAW does not outweigh the potential harm to the applicant in these circumstances.

25This decision is not to be read by anyone that the Board will interfere with legitimate internal union matters. This interim order only postpones the trial until after the section 91 com­plaint is decided. It only affects Mr. Brouwers and his crew and only refers to dues prior to 1995.

Appendix

The Labour Relations Act

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board

THIS NOTICE IS POSTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH A DIRECTION OP THE BOARD, ISSUED AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH BOTH THE APPLICANT.,HANK BROUWERS, AND THE UNION HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS.

THE BOARD HAS DIRECTED THE TRIAL OF HANK BRDIMSRB BE POSTPONED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE COMPLAINT IN BOARD FILE NO. 1990-95-U FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE ATTACHED DECISION.

IF THE BOARD FINDS THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT IN 1990-95-U THEN CUSAW IS FREE TO CONTINUE WITH THE TRIAL PURSUANT TO ITS BY-LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. IF THE BOARD DOES FIND A VIOLATION OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT IN 1990-95-U IT WILL MAKE THE APPROPRIATE ORDERS AND OBJECTIONS.

EMPLOYEES IN ONTARIO HAVE THESE RIGHTS WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY LAW,

AN EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR PENALIZED OR THREATENED OR FORCED TO DO ANYTHING OR NOT TO ON ANYTHING BY AN EMPLOYER OR A TRADE UNION OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF AN EMPLOYER OR A TRADE UNION BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT.

AN EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE PENALIZED OR THREATENED OR FORCED TO DO ANYTHING OR NOT TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE HE OR SHE PARTICIPATED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT INCLUDING ATTENDING A HEARING AS A WITNESS OR A POTENTIAL WITNESS.

IF AN EMPLOYEE IS PENALIZED OR THREATENED OR FORCED TO DO ANYTHING OR NOT TO DO ANYTHING FOR EXERCISING ANY OF THESE RIGHTS. A COMPLAINT MAY BE FILED WITH THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD.

This is an official notice of the Board and must not be removed or defaced.