FirstOntario Credit Union v. Office Professional Employees International Union, Local 343, 2000 CanLII 13270

3432-99-R FirstOntario Credit Union, Applicant v. Office Professional Employees International Union, Local 343; National Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada, Responding Parties.

BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 21, 2000

1. This is an application pursuant to section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") with respect to the bargaining rights of the responding parties OPEIU Local 343 and CAW as a result of the sale of a business to the applicant by Avestel Credit Union and Family Savings Credit Union.

2. At the request of the applicant, the style of cause is amended to reflect the applicant’s new name, “FirstOntario Credit Union”.

3. There is substantial agreement among the parties as to the material facts. The dispute between the applicant and the responding parties is whether the application is premature.

4. Avestel Credit Union (“Avestel”) and Family Savings Credit Union (“Family Savings”) have merged their entire operations into a new entity now known as FirstOntario Credit Union (formerly Avestel Family Savings Credit Union).

5. According to the applicant, Avestel had 11 branches and a head office. The head office was located in Hamilton. Avestel’s by-laws did not permit it to operate in the Niagara area. Its branches were located in Hamilton, Oakville, Burlington, Cayuga, Simcoe, and Tilsonburg. Avestel has four bargaining units: Hamilton, Burlington Full-time, Burlington Part-time, and Cayuga. All but three of the branches are unionized; employees in the “Fairview”, Tilsonburg and Simcoe branches are not unionized. Family Savings had six branches and a head office. The head office was located in St. Catharines. The branches were located in Thorold, Niagara Falls and St. Catharines. Family Savings’ by-laws permitted it to operate only in the Niagara area. Family Savings had several bargaining units but these were combined into one unit in 1999 by agreement between CAW Local 199 and Family Savings. The unit also includes employees working in certain classifications in the head office.

6. Prior to the merger, Avestel and Family Savings had entered into a joint venture to create a separate company to operate a Data Centre to do technology-related work for both credit unions and for other clients. Employees at the Data Centre were not unionized.

7. In 1999, Avestel and Family Savings agreed to merge. The new organization’s head office is in Hamilton and a regional office is located in St. Catharines. The applicant states that, as a result of the merger, none of the bargaining unit employees have changed bargaining units or locations, and that no intermingling of bargaining unit employees has taken place.

8. The responding party OPEIU Local 343 agrees with substantial portions of the applicant’s submissions as to the relevant facts. However, OPEIU Local 343 asserts that the application is either premature or unnecessary because there has been no intermingling so as to create labour relations problems requiring the Board to act under section 69, and it asserts that the Act itself accomplishes what the applicant seeks without the need for an order. OPEIU Local 343 seeks an adjournment of the application pending completion of the merger plans “in their totality”.

9. The responding party CAW generally agrees with the facts described by the applicant as they relate to CAW Local 199. It asserts that the company has made a no-lay off commitment to March 31, 2002. CAW agrees that the description of its bargaining unit should be confined to the Regional Municipality of Niagara. However, CAW agrees with OPEIU Local 343 that the application is premature and unnecessary because intermingling has not occurred.

10. The applicant disagrees that its application is premature. It states that the application is made under subsection 69(4) of the Act, not subsection 69(6), and intermingling is not required in order for a declaration to be made. It asserts that the events necessary to trigger section 69 have already taken place and that subsection 69(4) is intended to allow the Board to determine the bargaining unit structure in the present case. The applicant objects to waiting an undetermined period of time before obtaining a final adjudication of the matter. It points out that there is substantial agreement by the parties as to the requested order, except as to its timing.

11. The applicant asserts that subsection 69(4) of the Act is triggered because a sale has taken place and there is a conflict between OPEIU Local 343 bargaining rights and CAW (Local 199) bargaining rights. It states that the conflict is apparent on the face of the recognition clause in the collective agreement between CAW-Canada and Family Savings Credit Union (Niagara) Ltd. The applicant seeks to have the conflict resolved by limiting the scope of the recognition clause to all of the applicant’s operations in the Niagara Region. Thus, the applicant asserts that the appropriate bargaining unit structure comprises the bargaining units that existed prior to the sale. The responding parties do not disagree with this position in respect of bargaining unit structure. The applicant asserts that subsection 69(4) is designed to preserve the like bargaining units, with modifications as necessary. It asserts that it is not necessary to show intermingling of employees. It further asserts that it would be consistent with Board jurisprudence and long-standing practice to resolve these issues now, rather than permitting an indefinite delay.

Decision

12. The Board agrees with the applicant that it is desirable to resolve the conflict between the bargaining rights of the responding parties that is caused by the wording of the recognition clause in the CAW-Canada collective agreement. I am not persuaded by the responding parties that the issue should be adjourned indefinitely. The responding parties have not identified a specific point in the future that would be a more appropriate time for a determination by the Board. The Board agrees with the applicant that it is necessary and desirable for the parties’ labour relations to give this matter some finality and certainty. As this appears to be the only relevant matter in dispute, the Board is able to make its determination without an oral hearing.

13. The Board hereby declares that: