General Motors of Canada Limited v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Canada (CAW-Canada), and its Local 222, and Kathy Lenehan, and James Robinson and Stan Arkwright
1414-00-U General Motors of Canada Limited, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Canada (CAW-Canada), and its Local 222, and Kathy Lenehan, and James Robinson and Stan Arkwright Responding Parties.
BEFORE: R.O. MacDowell, Chair.
APPEARANCES: James Hassell and Elizabeth Campin for the applicant; Lewis Gottheil and Mike Shields for the responding parties.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 16, 2000
1This is an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act.
2The nature of the application has been set out in an earlier Board decision, that was released to the parties at about 3.00 p.m. yesterday afternoon. That earlier decision also spells out the legal framework within which the parties rights must be determined – in particular, that the collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act both prohibit any work stoppages during the currency of a collective agreement.
3I will not repeat here what was said in the earlier decision. It suffices to say that if there is a work place dispute while a collective agreement is in operation, employees are obliged to use the grievance arbitration procedure to resolve that dispute. They cannot go on strike. Any work stoppage is unlawful. Moreover, an unlawful strike exposes the employees to discipline or discharge, and exposes the union to substantial damages for any production lost as a result of the strike.
4In the instant case, the employer asserts that there has been a serious work stoppage, affecting thousands of employees, which has caused significant disruption at its facilities in Oshawa, Ontario. On the other hand, it is appropriate to note that, as of the issuance of this decision, the day shift in the affected Car Assembly facilities has reported to work and has engaged in regular production.
5In view of the nature of the case, and in accordance with the agreement of the institutional parties, the Board convened an “expedited hearing” to receive the preliminary submissions of counsel on the matters in dispute.
6Having regard to the representations and agreements of the “institutional parties”, (as advanced by counsel) the Board makes the following initial declarations and directions, (which, having regard to the resumption of normal production this morning, August 16, 2000, are intended to reinforce the reasoning set out in paragraph 3 above, and permit the resolution of outstanding issues and concerns through productive in-plant union/company discussions, or other legal avenues):
The Board declares that the respondent employees named in the style of cause and certain other employees (“the employees”) have engaged in an unlawful strike in violation of section 79 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board directs that
(a) the Employees and all other persons having notice or knowledge of this order, cease and desist immediately from engaging in an unlawful strike; and
(b) the Employees and all other persons having notice or knowledge of this Direction, cease, desist and refrain from doing any act that they know or ought to know will prompt others to engage in an illegal strike or slowdown.
7The Board further directs that reasonable steps be taken to bring this decision to the attention of the employees who may be affected by it. Copies of this decision should posted in prominent places in the work place, where they will come to the attention of the employees who engaged in, or were affected by, the work stoppage.
8If the unlawful work stoppage reoccurs prior to the conclusion of the night shift commencing at 4:30 p.m. on August 16, 2000, then the Board hearing scheduled for August 17, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. will continue as scheduled, and the Board may make such further and additional orders as seem necessary to bring the work stoppage to an end.
9In the meantime, it is appropriate to put all employees on notice that counseling or engaging in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct, which may put their jobs “on the line”, and may expose their union to substantial damage claims.
“R. O. MacDowell”
for the Board