24 total
Related employer declaration granted; certification application dismissed due to insufficient membership in combined unit.
The union applied for certification for employees of Bright Veal Meat Packers Ltd. The employer requested that the Board apply section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to treat Bright Veal and Globe Wholesale Meats Inc. as one employer, arguing they were associated businesses under common control.
The Board found comprehensive integration and significant intermingling of employees between the two operations.
The Board declared the two companies to be one employer to prevent undue fragmentation of bargaining rights.
As the union did not have sufficient membership support in the combined bargaining unit, the application for certification was dismissed.
Employer's firm position against compulsory union dues check-off during first contract negotiations did not constitute bad faith bargaining.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement, specifically regarding the issue of union security.
The employer took a firm position against compulsory dues check-off, offering only voluntary check-off.
The Board found that the employer had engaged in rational and informed discussion and was entitled to take a firm position on union security.
The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the grounds that the employer's rigid stance on union security constituted surface bargaining.
Union's request to set aside tie vote dismissed; employer's campaign letter did not constitute undue influence.
The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding an employer's campaign letter distributed prior to a representation vote.
The vote resulted in a 60-60 tie.
The union alleged the letter violated a prior settlement agreement prohibiting communications indicating victory or defeat in a previous discharge complaint, thereby constituting undue influence under section 56 of the Labour Relations Act.
The majority of the Board dismissed the application and complaint, finding the employer's letter did not breach the settlement agreement and fell within the parameters of acceptable employer response to union propaganda.
A six-month bar on further certification applications was imposed.
One Board member dissented, arguing the letter breached the settlement and warranted a second vote.
Successor employer remains bound by predecessor's collective agreement for all intermingled employees after union wins representation vote.
Following the sale of a business and the intermingling of unionized and non-unionized employees, the Board ordered a representation vote.
The union won the vote.
The successor employer argued the vote should be set aside due to union propaganda and that, regardless of the vote, the predecessor's collective agreement should be declared no longer binding because it was unsuitable for the new operation and should not apply to non-unionized transferred employees.
The Board upheld the vote and held that under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, the collective agreement continues in force and applies to all employees falling within the scope of the bargaining unit, including those transferred from the successor's other operations.
The employer's request to terminate the collective agreement was dismissed.
