Peter F. Chauvin

The applicants, employees at an A&P retail store, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had negotiated a new collective agreement with less favourable terms to facilitate the store's conversion to a different banner, aiming to preserve jobs.

The applicants argued the union should have waited until the existing collective agreement expired and allowed the full membership to vote.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union faced a difficult choice to prevent a potential store closure and acted reasonably by allowing the affected store employees to vote on the proposal, which the majority accepted.

The union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant hospital applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following the amalgamation of two hospitals.

The parties agreed that a sale of a business occurred and that representation votes should be held between competing unions for merged clerical and service bargaining units.

The parties sought a determination on whether the collective agreement of the winning union would apply to all employees in the new bargaining units after the vote, and what impact the statutory freeze period would have.

The Board held that under section 69(6), the collective agreement of the successful union applies to the entire bargaining unit, and that the Board's declarations terminating the losing union's collective agreement and amending the winning union's bargaining unit description would be made retroactive to the date of the application.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The respondent employer and objecting employees sought a second vote, arguing that an employee who cast a ballot and resigned the following working day to take another job lacked sufficient interest in the bargaining unit.

The Board held that the employee was eligible to vote because she was employed on both the date the vote was ordered and the date it was taken.

The Board also declined a belated request by the objectors to redefine the bargaining unit to exclude engineering employees, noting the parties had previously agreed to their inclusion.

The union won the vote and a certificate was issued.

The applicant trade union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign, which chilled employee support.

During bargaining, the employer refused to provide the union with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and wage rates of bargaining unit employees, and maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board concluded that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority and its failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had previously applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration, which was granted by another panel of the Board.

The Board held that under section 40a(22) of the Labour Relations Act, it must consider the applications in the order it deems appropriate, and if it grants one, it must dismiss the other.

The Board determined it was appropriate to consider the first contract application prior to the termination application.

Since the first contract application was granted, the termination application was dismissed.