Ontario Labour Relations Board

[1995] OLRB Rep. March 338

3562-92-R International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Applicant v. Premark Canada Inc., Responding Party

BEFORE: Janice Johnston, Vice-Chair, and Board Members D. G. Wozniak and E. G. Theobald.

APPEARANCES: James Hayes and Dave Ritchie for the applicant; T. W. Sargeant and Paul George Stethem for the responding party.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 22, 1995

1. The Board by decision dated June 15, 1993 [now reported at [1993] OLRB Rep. June 540] directed that two bargaining units be combined and referred the matter back to the parties to provide them the opportunity to resolve the effects of the Board's decision. The Board remained seized in the event that it was necessary to provide remedial relief. The parties were unable to reach agreement and requested that the Board schedule a hearing to deal with the outstanding matters.

2. For ease of reference the applicant will be referred to as the "union" and the responding party will be referred to as the "employer".

3. The parties were in agreement that it was unnecessary to call further evidence and with the exception of the additional facts set out below, were content to base their arguments on the factual findings set out in the Board's earlier decision. The relevant portions of that award read as follows:

4. Premark manufactures, sells and services food preparation equipment, warewash and waste equipment and weight/wrap equipment. This equipment is utilized in commercial kitchens such as are found in restaurants and hospitals. Some examples of the equipment are meat slicers, weigh scales and certain refrigerated units.

5. Premark's main administrative offices and central warehouse are located at 190 Railside Road in North York. The company also has a central service branch located at 50 Mural Street in Richmond Hill. The union has been the bargaining agent for the employees working out of the Richmond Hill location for many years. The bargaining unit consists of approximately 20 individuals all of whom are employed as and classified as service technicians. The recognition clause of the current collective agreement in force between the parties is as follows:

ARTICLE 2- RECOGNITION

2.01 The Company recognizes and accepts the Union as the sole collective bargaining agency for all its employees at 50 Mural Street, Richmond Hill, save and except Shop Managers, Field Service Supervisors, persons above the rank of Shop Manager or Field Service Supervisors and office and sales staff.

2.02 Agents, salesmen and out-of-town trainees who may be attached to the Company for training purposes shall not be used to displace regular employees in the bargaining unit, but shall be regarded as supernumerary and, as such, excluded from the application of this agreement.

6. The vast majority of the work of the service technicians involves the service, repair and maintenance of Premark equipment found in commercial kitchens. They also perform a minimal amount of installation work. The duties of Mr. Ritchie include responsibility for this bargaining unit and he has been associated with it since 1978. Until four years ago he was responsible for collective bargaining with Premark on behalf of the union.

7. The Board (differently constituted) by decision dated April 5, 1993 certified the union for a bargaining unit consisting of:

all employees of Premark Canada Inc. at its PMI Food Equipment Group Canada Division in the Regional Municipality of Sudbury and the Counties of Algoma, Sudbury, Cochrane, Temiskaming, Nipissing, and Parry Sound, save and except shop managers, field service supervisors, persons above the rank of shop manager or field service supervisor and office and sales staff.

For ease of reference, this bargaining unit will be referred to as the northern bargaining unit and the bargaining unit operating out of the Richmond Hill location will be referred to as the southern bargaining unit. The northern unit is made up of three employees. One employee is located in Sault Ste. Marie, one in Sudbury and one in Cochrane. All three are classified as service technicians and perform duties identical to their counterparts in the southern bargaining unit. It is these two bargaining units which the union seeks to combine.

8. There are three Premark sales and service branches in Ontario. They are located in Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto, The service technicians operating out of the Hamilton and Ottawa locations are not included in either of the bargaining units affected by this application.

9. Mr. Randy Taylor, a service manager for Premark, is responsible for the Toronto Branch located in Richmond Hill. In addition to the service technicians included in the southern bargaining unit, Mr. Taylor is also responsible for the service technicians located in the northern unit. He directs the work assignments of all the service employees including the three service technicians in the northern bargaining unit. The three individuals in the northern unit, as well as the employees in the southern unit, report to the Richmond Hill Office and receive their work assignments from a dispatcher in the Richmond Hill location. Employees are dispatched by two-way radio, pager or telephone. Employees primarily work out of their homes and vehicles. There has never been any intermingling of employees or movement of employees between the southern bargaining unit and the northern bargaining unit.

10. All the employees in the northern bargaining unit and the southern bargaining unit are paid by direct deposit which is administered by the payroll department at the Railside Road location. Benefits are also centrally administered from Railside Road. The three individuals employed in the northern bargaining unit are paid less than the employees in the southern bargaining unit with equivalent seniority. Employees in the southern bargaining unit with their seniority and skills currently receive the top hourly rate which is $18.90 per hour plus a 75~ per hour premium if they are licensed to work with equipment which utilizes gas. Therefore a technician in the southern bargaining unit with a gas licence receives $19.65 an hour. Two of the three employees in northern bargaining unit currently receive $18.25 per hour and the other is paid $18.50 per hour. These rates include the 75~ premium for a gas licence. The employees in the northern bargaining unit received their last increase in January 1993. The collective agreement covering the southern bargaining unit runs from August 11, 1992 to August 10, 1995. The employees receive wage increases in August in each of the three years of the agreement. The top hourly wage rate for service technicians in the southern bargaining unit will increase to $19.52 on August 11, 1993. The employees in the northern bargaining unit do not receive the same benefits as the employees in the southern bargaining unit.

11. The reasons behind the union's decision to seek to organize the northern bargaining unit and then make application to the Board to have it combined with the southern bargaining unit were outlined for the Board by Mr. Ritchie. Prior to the enactment of Bill 40 the union did not seek to obtain bargaining rights for the northern unit as it was not economically feasible to have such a small bargaining unit. The union would not normally consider such a small local due to the costs associated with the negotiation and administration of the collective agreement. Therefore although the union would not normally consider such a small bargaining unit, in this case because it felt it may be possible to combine the new northern bargaining unit with the southern bargaining unit, the union decided to organize the three employees located in northern Ontario. If the two bargaining units were not combined, the union also expressed concerns that consistency in the treatment of employees performing the work of a service technician might suffer if there were two separate locals with two separate collective agreements.

12. Mr. Knox on behalf of Premark expressed concern that the company might not be able to manage a profitable organization in northern Ontario if it was forced to compensate the service technicians at the same rate as is paid to the service technicians in its southern Ontario bargaining unit, as Premark cannot charge an equivalent service charge to its northern Ontario customers. Premark charges its customers for service calls on an hourly basis. The service charge rate in the Toronto area is $75.00 per hour. The service charge rate is less in northern Ontario and is $67.00 per hour. The northern Ontario rate is the highest rate the market can bear. Many independent service providers compete with Premark in northern Ontario, therefore to keep its customers, a lower rate must be charged. The service technicians in southern Ontario complete an average of 4.5 service calls per day. Due to the greater geographical distances between calls in northern Ontario the technicians can only complete an average of 2.5 calls per day. As the distances travelled in the north are greater, the travel costs are higher and the service vehicles must be replaced more frequently than the vehicles in southern Ontario. The operating costs for the vehicles in northern Ontario are approximately $200.00 more per month than the cost for the vehicles in southern Ontario.

13. Mr. Knox admitted in cross-examination that the company's concern in this application was not that the bargaining units would bargain together but that it might not be possible to negotiate a different wage rate in the northern unit. Mr. Knox also expressed concerns with regard to the manner in which certain aspects of the southern Ontario collective agreement would apply in northern Ontario. Stand-by pay and the grievance procedure were examples cited to support this.

14. The employer and the union enjoy a good working relationship. Very few grievances are filed by the union and there appears to be a desire on the part of both sides to work out any problems together.

15. The agreed statement which provides the additional facts reads as follows:

FACTS

1. The essential facts sufficient to describe the business of the Employer and the work of the service technicians in the bargaining unit are set out in the Board decision dated June 15, 1993.

2. Following the release of the Board decision, the Union and Company met and also communicated by telephone as directed by the Board "to resolve if possible the manner in which the three employees from the northern bargaining unit are to be dealt with under the new bargaining unit structure".

3. The parties have made no changes at all to the language of the collective agreement referable to service technicians in the North. An understanding was reached as to how the "call out" provision would apply.

4. The parties have not been able to resolve one issue; that is, the applicable maximum wage rate for the northern service technicians.

5. The position of the parties is as follows. In each case, the reference is to the maximum possible hourly rate inclusive of any premiums which may be available:

A] Company

Jan/93 : $18.50

Jan/94 : $18.83

proposal:

March 11/94 : $19.21

Aug. 11/94 : $19.59

B] Union

all rates as per existing collective agreement:

Jan/93 $19.65

Aug/93 $20.27

Aug/94 $21.00

6. The parties further agree that the panel should have reference to the evidence before it in the proceeding leading to the June 15, 1993 decision.

7. As previously stated by Mr. Ritchie, the Union represents service technicians, performing similar functions to those in the instant case, who are employed by Toledo Scale and Howe Richardson. Those employees similarly perform work in "Northern Ontario". They receive the same rates of pay as do their colleagues employed in the "south" or elsewhere in Ontario. There are no regional wage rates in the unionized sector of this service sector.

"P. Stethem" "Paul Ritchie"

PMI IAM

November 22/94

5. In response to questions from the panel, the parties clarified that paragraph three as set out above meant that the parties had agreed to extend the coverage of the existing collective agreement to the newly combined unit with two exceptions. These exceptions pertained to the "call out" provision and wages. The parties were able to reach an agreement with regard to the call out provision but were unable to agree on the wages to be paid to the three individuals formerly in the northern bargaining unit. Therefore the only matter remaining in dispute between the parties was the issue of wages.

Argument

6. The majority of the union's submissions were of a policy or general nature. Union counsel suggested that the Board should articulate and follow a number of broad presumptions when dealing with the ramifications of a consolidation order. Counsel on behalf of the union pointed to section 7(5) of the Act as providing the Board with a very broad discretion. Counsel urged the Board to focus on the purposes of section 7 which he stated were to stabilize bargaining structures; to enhance industrial stability; and to facilitate unionization and collective bargaining. In counsel's opinion the Board now has the power to monitor, craft or develop bargaining unit structures that are in the public interest over the longer term.

7. Counsel for the union suggested that when the Board combines bargaining units, such as it did in this case, there should be a presumption that the existing collective agreement should automatically apply. The Board, in counsel's opinion, should be very reluctant to exercise the extraordinary powers in section 7(5). Assuming that the automatic application of the collective agreement causes no serious labour relations problems, there should be a significant onus on the party opposing this automatic application to demonstrate that the existing collective agreement cannot serve the purposes of the new group without Board intervention. Counsel stated that it is difficult to see a case which could be more supportive of this argument than the case before the Board in this instance. The existing collective agreement covers the same classification, the work performed by this single classification is identical, the parties have resolved everything else, the industry practice is supportive, and the cost of rolling the three individuals into the collective agreement is minimal. Counsel acknowledged that there were other factual situations which would not be so supportive of his argument.

8. Union counsel also argued that there should be: a presumption against mid-term strikes or lock-outs and that industrial stability should be paramount; a presumption of equal pay for equal work and that in this case the Board should be reluctant to impose a two tier wage system; a presumption that the three individuals who recently organized should receive the same opportunities to improve their situation as if there had not been a consolidation order i.e. as if they had had access to First Contract Arbitration; and finally that the Board should presume that the legislature did not intend to set the Board up as a broadly mandated interest arbitrator (with emphasis on the word "broadly").

9. In specifically addressing the only issue in dispute between the parties, the applicable wage rates, counsel for the union argued that the Board would not be facilitating the objectives of section 7 if it were to direct a two tier wage structure, as to do so would not facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining.

10. In support of his policy arguments counsel on behalf of the union referred the Board to The Arbutus Club and National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada, (CA W-CANADA), Local 3002, 21 CLRBR (2d), a decision of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board and Premier Cablesystems Ltd. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213, [1982] 1 CLRBR, a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

11. Counsel for the employer started his argument by stressing that in suggesting a lower wage rate for the three individuals located in northern Ontario the company was not treating them unfairly. The company was prepared to and in fact had proposed wage increases for these three people which in counsel's opinion were more than fair. Counsel objected strenuously to the union's proposition that in cases such as this one, there should be a presumption that an existing collective agreement should automatically be extended to cover employees in a newly certified unit after it was combined with an existing unit. Counsel pointed out that in looking at section 7 it was difficult to see why there should be a presumption that the mature relationship would automatically apply.

12. Counsel for the employer argued that in combining bargaining units the Board changes bargaining power. On the facts before the Board, counsel pointed out that a three person unit would not have had the same negotiating power as it does when it bargains as part of a larger unit. The Board should not compound that shift in power by saying that the northern employees get everything previously acquired by the existing unit. Counsel also pointed out that if there was a presumption that the existing collective agreement would simply be extended to cover the new employees if one party sought this, then there was absolutely no need to bargain. If the parties couldn't move away from the existing position or the existing collective agreement, counsel questioned why the Board sent them away to negotiate the effects of the combination order. Counsel urged the Board not to create any presumptions that would create inequities between the parties and thereby hamper the bargaining which takes place after a consolidation order.

13. Counsel for the employer was also concerned that the union was re-arguing an issue which had already been dealt with by the Board at the time it issued the consolidation order, namely, whether the existing collective agreement should be automatically extended to the newly certified group. Counsel pointed to paragraph 30 of that decision where the Board says:

"The parties should not assume that when the Board concludes that it is appropriate to consolidate a new bargaining unit with a long-time bargaining unit, that the employer will be directed to provide all of the existing terms and conditions of employment, which are the result of many years of negotiations, to the employees in the newly certified bargaining unit".

Counsel argued that nothing had changed and that the same reasons exist now for not automatically extending the collective agreement as did at the time of the first hearing. In counsel's view, if the legislature had intended this result (the automatic extension of the existing collective agreement) they could have provided for it in the legislation. Counsel referred the Board to Olympia & York Developments Limited, [1994] OLRB Rep. May 583, in support of his position that there should not be a presumption that an existing collective agreement will automatically be extended to cover the new employees.

14. Employer counsel questioned the union's assertion that rolling the northern employees into the collective agreement would enhance stability. He pointed out that stability is not affected by how much money these three individuals earn. Counsel argued that equal pay for the same work was not a relevant consideration. He also questioned the union's position that the employer was seeking relief under section 7(5) and that the Board should only interfere in extraordinary circumstances. He argued that section 7(5) should not replace bargaining, but if the parties cannot agree then the Board must assist them.

15. Counsel for the Employer indicated that the company had legitimate reasons for not wanting to pay the same wages to the northern employees. These were outlined in the earlier decision. He admitted that the company was not saying it could not afford the increase. It might make the operation less viable but it would not push them into bankruptcy to pay the same wages to the northern employees. Therefore, counsel suggested that the Board should act as an interest arbitrator and decide the appropriate wage rate for the northern employees.

16. Both counsel were in agreement that the Board should adopt a case specific approach with regard to the remedies available in combination cases. Both parties felt that it was unnecessary to address some of the thornier questions which could arise such as the availability of strikes or lock-outs or the access to first contract arbitration in combination cases.

17. The relevant section of the Act reads:

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

18. At the time the Board consolidated the two bargaining units it directed the parties to resolve if possible the effects of the order through the process of collective bargaining. The Board declined to deal with the effects of the consolidation order until the parties had been provided an opportunity to negotiate on this point. This approach has been consistently followed and it appears to have met with considerable success. In only a very small percentage of the cases have the parties returned to the Board for further remedial directions.

19. In Olympia & York Developments Ltd., [1994] OLRB Rep. May 583, the Board combined a newly certified bargaining unit with an existing bargaining unit and referred the matter back to the parties to explore the way in which the "added on group" should be accommodated within the broader bargaining structure. The parties did not resolve their differences and the applicant or union in that case brought the matter back before the Board and argued that the only "terms" upon which it was required to bargain were those relating directly to the new classifications which had been added pursuant to the combination order. The union in that case argued, as did the applicant before us, that the subsisting collective agreement with its terms and conditions should immediately apply upon the consolidation of the bargaining units and without any need or requirement for negotiations. This argument was rejected by the Board and as the parties had not discussed the issues still in dispute the Board remitted the matter back to them. In reviewing the Board's expectations when it requires the parties to negotiate the impact of a combination order prior to making any directions pursuant to section 7(5), the Board stressed that while it was neither desirable nor possible to be too definitive concerning the content of that bargaining, the bargaining must encompass the kind of reasonable efforts and full, rational discussion that have always been part of the "section 15" duty to bargain in good faith. With that assistance from the Board, it appears that the parties were able to resolve their differences as the case has not come back before the Board.

20. At the time of the Board's first decision in the case before us, we dealt with the union's argument that the Board should simply extend the coverage of the existing collective agreement to the newly certified group and rejected it. We instead directed the parties to bargain on the effects of the consolidation order.

21. There is no dispute in the case before us that the parties have to a large extent, negotiated the effects of the consolidation order. They have agreed to extend the coverage of the collective agreement to the "add on" group except for those portions of the agreement dealing with call in pay and wages. The negotiations have therefore been partially successful in resolving the effects of the consolidation order. The parties have agreed to extend the collective agreement coverage, and they did so as a result of negotiations. It is one thing for the parties to agree to do this in the course of bargaining and a totally different matter for the Board to direct this result.

22. Since the negotiations failed to resolve all of the outstanding issues, the union has once again requested that the Board roll the add on group of employees into the existing collective agreement. It has buttressed its argument in favour of this with a number of policy arguments. However, for the same reasons previously expressed it is not appropriate for the Board to simply extend the coverage of an existing collective agreement to an employee group who could not have been contemplated at the time that agreement was entered into. Given the evolving nature of the jurisprudence, it is also not appropriate at this stage for the Board to articulate a number of presumptions applicable in all cases pursuant to section 7 of the Act. However, it should not be assumed that the Board would never find it appropriate to extend an existing collective agreement to a newly certified and then combined unit of employees. For example, in the retail sector, if an organization had two stores within the same municipal boundary, one of which was a party to a collective agreement and the other newly certified and combined with the existing bargaining structure, the Board might find it appropriate after having had regard to such things as market conditions, local wage rates and labour pool availability to simply extend the terms and conditions of the existing collective agreement to the newly certified group. This is an issue that could be raised and dealt with (as was done by the union in the case before us) at the time of the hearing into whether or not it is appropriate to combine the bargaining units.

23. The Board's practice in combination orders has been to direct the combination of the bargaining units and refer the matter back to the parties to resolve the effects of this order. Were we to simply roll the newly certified group of employees into an existing collective agreement after the parties have conducted negotiations as the union is now asking us to, it would negate the need to negotiate. What would be the point in attempting to negotiate if one party could simply request and be granted an order extending the collective agreement? It appears to us that if the Board adopted the presumption urged upon us by the union, namely that when the Board combines bargaining units there should be a presumption that the existing collective agreement should automatically apply, we would be undermining the current practice, which is working well. There would be no incentive to bargain if such a remedy was readily available. Collective bargaining is one of the corner-stones of labour relations in this province. The Board's experience has demonstrated that open and frank discussions about matters that concern both parties often results in their resolution in a mutually beneficial manner. Therefore, it is always going to be preferable and in the interests of viable and stable labour relations for the parties to negotiate and resolve, without Board intervention, the effects of a combination order. For all of these reasons we decline to order the automatic extension of the terms and conditions in the existing collective agreement to the add on group.

24. Although it was only addressed briefly, both parties were content to have the Board resolve the question of the appropriate wages for the three add on employees pursuant to the discretion found in section 7(5) of the Act.

25. The positions put forward by the parties with regard to wages were quite simple. The employer argued that it had made a reasonable wage proposal (its offer amounted to a 2% increase in March 1994 and a further 2% increase in August 1994) and that there was no reason why the add on employees should expect the substantial wage increase which would result if the Board simply directed the employer to pay the wages existing in the collective agreement. The employer conceded that it could afford to pay the collective agreement rate but argued that it would make the Northern operation less viable. In our earlier decision in this case, we accepted the employer's evidence that it had legitimate reasons for paying the employees located in northern Ontario less than it paid its employees in southern Ontario. To reiterate those reasons, the employer can not charge its customers as much for a service call in the north, the number of service calls per day completed by each technician in the north are fewer, and the vehicle operating costs are higher in the north as the distance between customers is greater.

26. The Union took the position that the Board should not create a two tier wage structure and that as the "add on" employees were employed in the same classification, performing the same duties, they should receive the same wages. If we were to award the wage rates proposed by the union it would result in a 6.2% wage increase in January 1993, with a further 3.4% increase in August 1993. Therefore in 1993 the newly certified employees would receive a 9.6% increase if we accept the union's proposal. In 1994 the union is asking for an additional 3.6% increase effective in August, 1994. The union pointed to the fact that the parties had agreed that the industry practice does not support regional wage rates such as the employer is proposing in this case. Regardless of an employee's location, the other employer's in this service industry pay the same wages to their technicians.

27. If the union was entitled to pursue first contract arbitration on behalf of the newly added employees (and we are not to be seen as deciding this issue) the Board would apply certain principles in determining the appropriate terms and conditions of the first collective agreement. The Board's approach when arbitrating a first collective agreement was articulated in Egan Visual Inc., [1986] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1687 as follows:

28. It would be unwise for the Board to attempt to definitively set forth the contents of a collective agreement which are applicable to all circumstances. As more first contract arbitrations are filed with the Board, no doubt criteria will arise as a result of experience in a greater number of situations. There are no statutory guidelines in the Act which require the Board to have regard to a given standard of comparison. The Board would, however, adopt the language set forth in Burlington Northern Air Freight (Canada) Ltd., [1986] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1327. In that case the Board indicated that it had adopted a somewhat similar approach to the reasoning of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board in London Drugs Ltd., [1974] Can. LRBR 140 at page 147. The Board agrees that applications under section 40a of the Act with respect to a first contract arbitration by the Board should not be used to achieve major breakthroughs in collective bargaining, but rather, the Board would try to settle the terms of a collective agreement which reflect a fairly general consensus as to what should be the contents of a collective agreement having regard to the particular circumstances of each collective bargaining situation. The Board also agrees that the terms of the collective agreement should be sufficiently attractive to the employees who are in the bargaining unit defined in the collective agreement that they would give serious consideration before deciding to terminate the bargaining rights of the applicant.

In Arrow Games Inc., [1991] OLRB Rep. Jan. 7 the Board stated:

18 The adjudication of an interest dispute between two parties is, in our view, a qualitatively different type of adjudication from other proceedings under the Act. The function of an adjudicator in an interest dispute is to, in essence, complete the process of negotiations that has up to that point, failed between the parties themselves. Obviously, the award of an interest arbitration board is final and binding upon the parties Both parties are putting forward proposals which they seek to have the Board adopt and incorporate into its award which will form the actual terms and conditions of employment for the employees in the bargaining unit. In interest disputes before the Board pursuant to section 40a of the Act, the Board has a broad discretion to determine those issues that remain in dispute between the parties. The result is the completion of the negotiating process and the creation of the collective agreement between the parties.

28. The comments of the Board outlined above may be utilized to provide some guidance in the situation we are dealing with in this case. As the parties failed to negotiate all of the terms and conditions which would govern the employment of the newly certified group, it falls to the Board to, as was noted, complete this process.

29. It is not unusual nor unreasonable for collective agreements which cover a wide and diverse geographic region to provide for differences in certain terms and conditions of employment dependent on the particular area within the geographic region in which an employee works. In the ICI sector of the construction industry for example, provincial agreements exist which include appendices providing for local variations in, amongst other things, wages. Thus for example, a carpenter doing work in Cambridge may be paid less than a carpenter in Hamilton who is doing exactly the same work. Different wage schedules exist for different Board areas in the construction industry. While the Board appreciates that any analogy to the construction industry in the context of a combination application is of limited value (as section 7 does not apply to the construction industry), nevertheless, in the construction industry individuals performing the same work in different parts of the province are paid different wages for legitimate reasons such as, market conditions, profitability of that area within a company's sphere of operations, local wage rates and labour. pool availability. These same circumstances may also exist in an "industrial" context where the company's operations are located in different parts of the province.

30. After having carefully reviewed the evidence and the submissions of the parties we are of the view that the appropriate wage increase for the newly certified employees lies somewhere between the positions taken by the parties. In coming to this conclusion, we would point out that we have very little evidence before us to assist us in determining what the appropriate wage increase should be. For all of the reasons previously articulated it is not appropriate to simply extend the existing wage rates in the collective agreement to this group of employees. Given the current economic conditions and the circumstances under which the employer operates in northern Ontario, the union's position that the newly certified group should receive a 9.6% increase for 1993 is unrealistic. However, we are also of the view that the employer's offer is too low. Accordingly, we direct the employer to provide the newly certified group with a 4% increase on the existing rates for 1993, effective August 1, 1993 and an additional 4% increase effective August 1,1994. In arriving at this figure, we have attempted to complete the process of negotiations which although largely successful, failed to resolve the appropriate wage rate.

31. In the event the parties have any difficulty implementing this award the Board shall remain seized with regard to further relief.