United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005 v. Stelco Inc. (Hilton Works)
2801-97-U United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005, Applicant v. Stelco Inc. (Hilton Works), Responding Party.
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
APPEARANCES: Brian Shell, Celia Harte, Warren Smith and Rolf Gerstenberger for the applicant; Stephen J. Shamie, Elizabeth M. Brown, Amanda Hunter, Robert Jones and Roger Fulton for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 13, 2001
1This is a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, (the "Act"). The union contends that Stelco has contravened section 17 of the Act: the duty to “bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement”.
2The union's theory of the case has been set out in an earlier Board decision, and will not be repeated here. It suffices to say that, although the most recent round of bargaining resulted in a collective agreement with which both parties were then satisfied (the latest in a series of collective agreements, over a 50 year collective bargaining history), the union now contends that the bargaining process was tainted by “bad faith” and material misrepresentation. The union seeks a variety of remedies which, again, need not be canvassed here.
3In accordance with its usual practice, the Board held a hearing to receive the parties' evidence and representations. That hearing consumed many days. The Board heard from a number of witnesses who were involved in the bargaining, and received many volumes of documents and notes assembled in connection with that bargaining. The Board also heard argument from counsel as to what conclusions (of fact and law), the Board should draw from the material before it.
4Having considered that material, the Board is satisfied (Board Member Peacock dissenting) that there has been no breach of the Labour Relations Act.
5The complaint is therefore dismissed.
6Reasons for the Board's determination may issue at a later date. However the panel is all of the view that the Board should issue this brief “bottom line decision”, so that the parties can get on with their collective bargaining relationship in the economic environment that now obtains.
“R. O. MacDowell”
for the Board