[1998] OLRB REP. MARCH/APRIL 158
4685-97-R Christopher Wittig, Applicant v. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario representing the following affiliated Local Unions 105, 115, 120, 303, 353, 402, 530, 586, 773, 804, 894, 1687, 1739, Responding Parties v. Christopher Wittig Holdings Ltd., Intervenor
BEFORE: Jules B. Bloch, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 20, 1998
The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding parties no longer represent the employees in a bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
On April 13, 1998 a differently constituted panel of the Board issued a decision directing the applicant to file submissions why the Board should not dismiss the application as a consequence of the application being an employer initiated application.
In total the submissions assert that Christopher Wittig Holdings Ltd. ("employer corporation") entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with the responding parties ("the union") on August23, 1984.
All the electric work on behalf of Christopher Wittig Holdings Ltd. is carried on by Christopher Wittig in his capacity as an employee and a member in good standing of the I.B.E.W.
The applicant asserts that Mr. Wittig is not receiving any benefit by virtue of the voluntary recognition agreement. As well he asserts that he does not carry out any managerial management functions because there are no electrical employees to manage.
The applicant submits that the policy raises Section 63(1 6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 has no relevance in relation to the facts pertaining to this application because the applicant is the only employee.
Section 63 of the Act envisages that applications for declaration terminating bargaining rights will be determined by way of representation vote. However, section 63(16) of the Act provides that in certain circumstances the disposition of a termination application will not be by way of a representation vote. Subsection 63(16) states the following:
(l6) Despite subsections (5) and (14), the Board may dismiss the application if the Board is satisfied that the employer or a person acting on behalf of the employer initiated the application or engaged in threats, coercion or intimidation in connection with the application.
It appears to the Board that Mr. Wittig is both the sole employee and the directing mind of Christopher Wittig Holdings Ltd. In the submissions filed with the Board there is no assertion that any other person is an employer, director or shareholder of Christopher Wittig Holdings Ltd. That being said and on the basis of the wording in section 63(16) I cannot see any reason why this matter should go to a vote.
It is clear on the face of the submissions that Christopher Wittig applied for termination of bargaining rights. It is also clear on the submissions that Christopher Wittig is the sole directing mind of Christopher Wittig Holdings Ltd. and consequently has initiated the application to terminate bargaining rights; something that an employer cannot do.
On the basis of the above reasons, lam dismissing this application.