Editor’s Note: Corrigendum released March 29, 2000. Original judgment has been corrected, with text of corrigendum appended.
3784-99-U Domtar Merchants, Buntin Reid, Applicants v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 1291, Bob Smart and Wes Laing, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 24, 2000
1This is an application filed pursuant to section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) in connection with an alleged unlawful strike, contrary to section 79 of the Act.
2On the day scheduled for the hearing of this matter, March 23, 2000, the parties entered into a memorandum of settlement as follows:
Board File No. 3784-99-U
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT
Between
Domtar Merchants, Buntin Reid
Applicant
-and –
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union
and its Local 1291, Bob Smart and Wes Laing
Responding Parties
WHEREAS on March 21, 2000 the Applicant Domtar Merchants, Buntin Reid (“Buntin Reid”) filed an application (the “Application”) to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) pursuant to section 100 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) against the Responding Parties Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (the “CEP”) and its Local 1291 (“Local 1291”), and against CEP National Representative Bob Smart and against Local 1291 president Wes Laing,
AND WHEREAS Buntin Reid alleged in the Application an unlawful strike at its Mississauga branch.
AND WHEREAS Buntin Reid and the Responding Parties (the “Parties”) are desirous of fully and finally resolving the Application,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS AGREED:
- The Parties agree to a Board decision which stipulates:
(a) that a concerted refusal to work overtime during the term of a collective agreement and any extension of a collective agreement pursuant to section 86 of the Act is an unlawful strike;
(b) that the Board finds an agreement of the Parties that employees of Buntin Reid at its Mississauga branch who are represented by the CEP and Local 1291 in collective bargaining engaged in a concerted refusal to work overtime on March 20 and 21, 2000 contrary to the Act and;
(c) that emloyees of Buntin Reid who are represented by the CEP and Local 1291 in collective bargaining are directed not to engage in an overtime ban or any other concerted activity contrary to the Act.
If an overtime ban or other concerted activity contrary to the Act henceforth occurs, CEP, Local 1291 and representatives of CEP and Local 1291 with proper authority will take immediate steps to attempt to bring such activity including but not limited to any overtime ban, to an end.
The Board is requested by the Parties to incorporate the terms of this Memorandum into a Board endorsed decision (the “Endorsement”).
The Parties agree to post the Endorsement in locations at the workplace which will bring such Endorsement to the attention of bargaining unit employees.
Buntin Reid’s grievance of March 22, 2000 is hereby withdrawn. Buntin Reid further undertakes to claim no damages in any proceedings against the CEP, Local 1291, Bob Smart, Wes Laing and employees with respect to the activities of March 20 and 21, 2000. This withdrawal and undertaking is without prejudice to Buntin Reid’s right to seek damages and other relief for identical or similar circumstances which may arise in the future. Nothing in this Memorandum prevents Buntin Reid, should it seek damages or other relief in the future, from referring to the events of March 20 and 21, 2000.
Buntin Reid agrees to discipline no employees for the activities of March 20 and 21, 2000. This is without prejudice to, and does not in any way preclude or hinder, the right of Buntin Reid to impose discipline for similar or identical unlawful strike activity in the future.
The proceedings pertaining to the Application are terminated. However, should Buntin Reid have any further allegations of unlawful strike activity, the Responding Parties hereby consent to such allegations being heard by the Board upon 24 hours notice of particulars to counsel for the Responding Parties, Caley & Wray, and to the Board.
DATED at Toronto this 23rd day of March, 2000
Domtar Merchants, Bunrin Reid
M. Dankner
per Mitchell Dunkner
Communications, Energy and Peperworkers
Union and Bob Smart
Robert Smart
per Bob Smart
CEP Local 1291 and Wes Laing
Weslay Laing
per: Wes Laing
3Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board makes the following findings, orders and directions:
(i) employees of the applicant (“the company”) at its branch in Mississauga, Ontario, who are represented by the responding trade union, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1291 (“the union”), engaged in a concerted refusal to work overtime on March 20 and 21, 2000;
(ii) a concerted refusal to work overtime during the term of a collective agreement, or beyond the term of a collective agreement in the absence of the conditions set out in section 86 of the Act, is an unlawful strike;
(iii) employees of the company represented by the union are directed not to engage in a concerted refusal to work overtime or any other concerted activity contrary to the Act;
(iv) the company and the union are directed to post this decision in locations at the workplace where it will come to the attention of the bargaining unit employees;
(v) this matter is terminated.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board
Corrigendum
3784-99-U Domtar Merchants, Buntin Reid Applicant v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 291, Bob Smart and Wes Laing, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 29, 2000
4On March 24, 2000 the Board issued a decision which reflected the Memorandum of Settlement entered into by the parties in this matter. By letter dated March 24, 2000 counsel for the applicant employer requests a reconsideration of my decision on the basis of:
a) two typographical errors;
b) a change to paragraph 3(i) of my findings, orders and directions;
c) an addition to my findings, orders and directions so as to allow for this matter to be expedited automatically by the Board at the request of the applicant employer.
5In respect of a) above the following changes shall be made to the March 24, 2000 decision:
After the recitals on page 2 the word “ALLEGED” should read “AGREED”.
The name “Dunkner” on the first signature line and below the first signature line on page 3 should read “Dankner”.
6In respect of b) above, paragraph 3(i) of my decision of March 24, 2000 is amended to read:
3(i) employees of the applicant (“the company” ) at its branch in Mississauga, Ontario, who are represented by the responding trade union, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1291 (“the union”), engaged in a concerted refusal to work overtime on March 20 and 21, 2000 contrary to the Act.
7In respect of c) above, the Board attempts to be and is largely successful in being responsive to requests for expedition in these situations. However, I am not prepared to amend my March 24, 2000 decision in the way requested by the applicant in its reconsideration request.
8This decision is to be posted in the workplace next to the Board’s decision of March 24, 2000.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board
Further Decision
3784-99-U Domtar Merchants, Buntin Reid, Applicants v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 1291, Bob Smart and Wes Laing, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 11, 2000
9By decision dated March 29, 2000 the Board amended its decision of March 24, 2000 in this matter.
10At the request of the applicant, I have attached as Schedule “A” to this decision, the decision of March 24, 2000 as amended.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board