Ontario Labour Relations Board
1753-01-R United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175, Applicant v. Compass Group Canada Ltd.; Canteen of Canada Ltd.; Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 8, 2001
1The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding parties: “Compass Group Canada Ltd.; Canteen of Canada Ltd.; Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd.”
2This is an application pursuant to sections 1(4) and 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
3The application alleges that Compass Group Canada Ltd. (“Compass”) purchased Beaver Foods Ltd. (“BFL”) and that Compass also owns Canteen of Canada Ltd. (“Canteen”). The responding parties note that BFL’s assets were transferred to Compass Group Canada (Beaver) Ltd. (“Beaver”) and that Compass purchased Beaver.
4The parties do not dispute that the applicant is the exclusive bargaining agent of certain employees of Canteen, and has entered into a collective agreement with Canteen respecting those employees, which include persons servicing vending machines in a geographic area comprising several counties. The City of Guelph falls within the geographic area described in the collective agreement.
5The applicant does not allege that BFL’s employees in Guelph were represented by a bargaining agent at the time of the asset transfer to Beaver or Beaver’s acquisition by Compass.
6The applicant alleges that Compass employees have been required to perform work formerly performed by BFL employees in Guelph, and that this work falls within the scope of the collective agreement between Canteen and the applicant.
7The applicant seeks to have the Board make a declaration pursuant to section 69 of the Act that BFL was sold to Compass. The applicant also seeks to have the Board exercise its discretion pursuant to section 1(4) of the Act to declare Compass, Canteen and BFL to be related employers, and that the former BFL employees are bound to the collective agreement between the applicant and Canteen.
8The responding parties take the position that the application does not establish a prima facie case for the following reasons:
- BFL was a non-union operation at the time of its acquisition such that section 69 of the Act has no application; and
- The application does not disclose any labour relations reason for granting a declaration pursuant to section 1(4) of the Act.
9The applicant is directed to deliver and file written submissions addressing the issues raised by the responding parties by no later than November 16, 2001. The responding parties may deliver and file submissions in reply by no later than November 23, 2001. In the event the applicant fails to deliver timely submissions as directed above, this application may be dismissed on the basis of the material already filed.
10This panel remains seized for the purposes of dealing with these preliminary matters.
“Mary Anne McKellar ”
for the Board