Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 141 v. Rich-Wood Kitchens Ltd.
File No.: 3811-00-R Date: May 14, 2001
Applicant: Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 141 Responding Party: Rich-Wood Kitchens Ltd.
Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF PATRICK KELLY, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER R. R. MONTAGUE; May 14, 2001
1In its decision of April 6, 2001, the Board (differently constituted) granted the applicant leave to withdraw its application for certification, and directed the responding party to file submissions with respect to the applicant’s request that the Board not impose a bar to a future application for certification.
2The responding party filed its submissions. It contends that a bar should be imposed because of the applicant’s admission of a measurable erosion of its support prior to the scheduled date for the representation vote (which vote was cancelled in light of the request to withdraw). The responding party contends that that admission constitutes a recognition of an inevitable loss had the vote gone ahead, and further, that it makes clear that the wishes of the employees have been tested with certainty in this matter. The responding party relies upon Sara Lee Bakery Canada, [1996] OLRB Rep. May/June 480 in support of its position that the Board should impose a bar pursuant to section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (“the Act”). We note that the differently constituted panel of the Board in the Sara Lee case did not impose a bar on a future application for certification.
3We are not persuaded that this is an appropriate case in which to exercise our discretion to impose a bar pursuant to section 7(9) of the Act. We are doubtful that the applicant’s mere admission of erosion of employee support constitutes proof that the employees’ wishes have been sufficiently tested. Moreover, we are not satisfied that the applicant has engaged in actions which constitute an abuse of process. Thus, the considerations articulated in the Sara Lee case (and in several Board decisions since, including Baron Metal Industries Inc., [1999] OLRB Rep. May/June 363; Canadian Opera Company, [1999] OLRB Rep. Sept./Oct. 804; Peak Frean, a Division of Christie Brown & Co. [2000] O.L.R.D. No. 1931) for the imposition of a bar are not present in the matter before us.
4For these reasons, we decline the responding party’s request to impose a bar pursuant to section 7(9) of the Act.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; May 14, 2001
The intent of the Legislature in the latest amendments to the Act make it clear that a bar should be imposed where a vote has been ordered and then the applicant union withdraws its application so it will not lose the vote. Such is the admitted case here. I would dismiss the application and impose a bar of one year from the original application date.
“J. A. Ronson”