Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1996] OLRB Rep. May/June 478
0388-96-U International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1922, Applicant v. Orenda Aerospace Corporation, Responding Party
BEFORE: G. T Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members O. R. McGuire and H. Peacock.
APPERANCES: M. Lewis and Brian Short for the applicant; Martin Addario and Kirsten Ramage for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 10, 1996
1This is a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in which the applicant trade union alleges that the responding employer has violated sections 17, 45, 48, 56, 60, 70, and 72 of the Act.
2A hearing was convened on May 30, 1996.
3In its pleadings, the responding employer states that its correct name is "Orenda Aerospace Corporation", that on the date this application was made it was "Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc., Orenda Division" but that on May 7, 1996, that company was sold and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Fleet Aerospace Corporation known as "Orenda Aerospace Corporation", agrees with the applicant trade union's assertion that it represents the office and technical employees of the responding employer at its Derry Road, Mississauga facility, and states that the parties have had a collective bargaining relationship "since at least 1950."
4Accordingly, and having regard also to what was said at the hearing, the Board declares that there has been a sale of business within the meaning of section 69 of the Act by Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc., Orenda Division to Orenda Aerospace Corporation. The Board further declares that the applicant trade union holds bargaining rights for the same office and technical employees at the Derry Road, Mississauga facility now as it did before the sale, and that the notice to bargain given by the applicant trade union to Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc., Orenda Division has the same effect as if it was given to Orenda Aerospace Corporation.
5The name of the responding employer is therefore amended to "Orenda Aerospace Corporation."
6Upon considering the materials filed, and the representations of the parties at the hearing, the Board ruled, orally, that it considered it appropriate to exercise its discretion, under section 96 of the Act, not to inquire further into the complaint.
7In that respect, it appeared to the Board that even if the applicant bad made out an arguable case, and even if the relief the trade union sought was arguably appropriate, something which was far from clear, litigating the matter would do nothing to further either the collective bargaining in which the parties are engaged, or their labour relations in general. On the contrary, it appeared more likely that litigating the complaint would only get in the way of collective bargaining. At the very least, it would have caused further delay in that respect and inhibited useful collective bargaining in circumstances in which everyone agreed the bargaining table is where the parties should be. The Board considered it inappropriate to inject itself into collective bargaining between the parties, which would have been the effect of allowing this complaint to proceed. Accordingly, the Board exercises its discretion not to do so as aforesaid.
8In an attempt to offer some guidance to the parties, and to demonstrate to them that at least some of their differences are perhaps more semantic than real, the Board observed as follows:
(a) although bargaining the scope of bargaining rights is permissible, no party can bargain scope issues to impasse;
(b) whether or not an employer's request or insistence that a trade union take a collective bargaining proposal to a vote of the bargaining unit employees constitutes a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 will depend on the circumstances.
9At the very least there is some question of the continued applicability of the Board's preBill 7 jurisprudence in that respect. Nevertheless, the parties to collective bargaining are the employer and the trade union (the latter as the exclusive bargaining agent of the bargaining unit employees) and ratification remains primarily an internal trade union matter, until bargaining has reached the point at which section 44 of the Act applies (or section 42 is invoked by the employer).