2047-00-R Canadian Cereal Workers, CLC Local 101, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Kraft Canada Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 14, 2000
1This is an application for a declaration that the applicant, Canadian Cereal Workers, CLC Local 101 has acquired the rights, privileges and duties of its predecessor, SEIU. The application pertains to bargaining rights regarding employees of Kraft Canada Inc. (the “employer”) in Niagra Falls.
2The application was served on the employer and on the alleged predecessor trade union. The predecessor has filed no response. The employer has indicated that it does not intend to take an active role in this proceeding and consents to the declaration requested being made without an oral hearing. Notice of the application was posted in the workplace and affected employees were invited to register their concerns with the Board. None have.
3In that kind of context, i.e. where there is no apparent opposition to the application, the Board might be inclined or expected to grant the declaration sought.
4We are, however, unable to do so in the present case.
5The Board’s concerns are two-fold.
6First, the narrative description of the events giving rise to the alleged transfer is so skeletal as to make it impossible for the Board to conclude that the transfer has occurred. The application (and supporting documents) refers variously to SEIU and Local 101 and Local 101, National Conference of Firemen and Oilers. Nowhere is the precise relationship between these entities explained, nor is the Board advised as to who precisely held the bargaining rights prior to the alleged transfer (no collective agreement has been filed). Similarly and even assuming that the kind of process described otherwise amounts to a merger or amalgamation or a transfer of jurisdiction (a conclusion which is difficult to arrive at on the basis of the materials filed), the materials do not disclose that the process was ever completed (the last two documents are a recommendation that something happen and a letter indicating SEIU had no objection to it happening – but there is no documentation indicating the process was ever completed).
7Quite apart from the inadequacy of the information filed, the Board had a second concern.
8The applicant has never previously been found to be a trade union within the meaning of the Act. Neither is there anything in the materials filed which would permit the Board to arrive at such a conclusion. Neither (in view of the Board’s decision in University of Toronto [1999] OLRB Rep. July 742) does the fact that the applicant may be a directly chartered local of the CLC provide any great assistance in that regard.
9In view of the fact that this application is otherwise unopposed, the Board will give the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions and file further documentary evidence in support of its position. The applicant will have three weeks from the date hereof to do so. The other two parties will have two weeks from the day they receive those submissions/filings to make any further submissions to the Board.
10The Board will review the matter once again after the submissions contemplated herein have been effected or the time for so doing has passed.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board