ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 11-31280
DATE: 2015-12-09
BETWEEN:
NANCY GUZZO on her own behalf and on behalf of ALL MEMBERS OF LABOURERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 1110
Plaintiffs
– and –
PAULA RANDAZZO, KIM BOYLE, KIM LEBLANC, DIANE TAYLOR, TONY IANNUZZI on his own behalf and on behalf of ALL MEMBERS OF THE CARPENTERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ONTARIO, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA and JOHN MOSZYNSKI
Defendants
Michael D. Wright, Amanda Darrach, and Mariam Moktar, Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Dan Shields, Hendrik Nieuwland, and Stephanie Brown, for the Defendants
HEARD: May 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 2015
JUDGMENT
WHITTEN J.
I. Introduction
[1] This action against former employees and members of the Labourers International Union of North America (“LiUNA”), Local 1110 and an employee and members of the Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “Carpenters”), arises out of the formation of a new local of the Carpenters, namely the Healthcare Office and Professional Employees, Local 2220 (“HOPE”). HOPE came into existence by virtue of the efforts of the former employee and members of Local 1110, in particular Paula Randazzo, with the assistance of Carpenters members Tony Iannuzzi and John Moszynski, counsel to the Carpenters.
[2] The mantra of the counsel for the plaintiffs throughout this proceeding was that the complaint of LiUNA with respect to the formation of HOPE was not based on the fact of the formation per se, but rather on the means and the efforts of both former employees/members of LiUNA and employees/members of the Carpenters which led to its creation.
[3] This new local HOPE proceeded to “raid” the membership of LiUNA based at certain nursing homes/long-term care facilities, during the open period of their collective bargains, which commenced around the time of the formation of the new local. HOPE was initially successful at the four nursing homes (the four “W’s”) and two subsequent units in achieving representation of the workers at those locations with a consequential loss of union memberships payable to LiUNA. It is that loss and related expenses that LiUNA seeks in this matter from the defendants personally and the Carpenters union which historically has been its nemesis.
II. Issues
[4] The defendants can be divided into four distinct groups: a) the defendant Paula Randazzo (“Randazzo”) the former business manager of Local 1110), b) her colleagues Kim Boyle (“Boyle”), Kim LeBlanc (“LeBlanc”) and Diane Taylor (“Taylor”), c) John Moszynski (“Moszynski”), the counsel to the Carpenters, and d) Tony Iannuzzi (“Iannuzzi”), president of the Carpenters District Council of Ontario. The latter two defendants are sued in their representative capacity of the Carpenters.
[5] Each group is allegedly liable to LiUNA for its damages on certain bases in law.
[6] Randazzo, a business manager, is alleged to have been in the role of a fiduciary vis-à-vis LiUNA and consequently, given the circumstances of her departure and establishment of HOPE, it is alleged she breached her fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidentiality. If Randazzo is not so characterized by the court, it is alleged that Randazzo acted in breach of her duty of loyalty and confidentiality as an employee of LiUNA.
[7] Boyle, LeBlanc and Taylor are alleged to have breached their duties as employees of LiUNA to demonstrate loyalty and confidentiality.
[8] Moszynski and Iannuzzi are alleged to have interfered with the contractual relations between LiUNA and its employees above, by facilitating their departure and establishment of HOPE.
[9] The above allegations require analysis of: a) the determination of the circumstances in which an employee is a fiduciary to an employer, the duties of the fiduciary to an employer, b) what constitutes “constructive dismissal” and what is the impact relative to the duties between employer and employee, c) the duties of a departing employee to an employer in terms of loyalty, confidentiality and notice, and d) the tort of interference in economic interests.
[10] The resulting analyses are applied in the context of the formation of this new local to determine if there are compensable damages payable to the plaintiffs.
III. The Statutory Backdrop
[11] The Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 prevails over the activities of unions within the province.
[12] Section 63 (2) provides a mechanism by which employees in a bargaining unit can apply for a declaration that their union to date no longer represents them. This application is to be within the last three months of the prevailing collective agreement (assuming the agreement is for a period of time equal to or less than three years, or if the agreement is longer than three years, between the 34th and 37th month of the agreement). This time of potential union replacement is referred to as the “open period”.
[13] If the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“Board”) decides that more than 40 percent of the employees no longer wish to be represented by the existing union, the union is required to direct a representation vote be taken. Coincidentally, another union can apply to be the certified representative, or “bargaining agent”, of the employees in question. This displacement exercise is referred to as “raiding”.
[14] The Board in hearing the application for certification entertains any allegations of unfair labour practices and misconduct made on behalf of the incumbent or the potential representative union. The decision of the Board of June 21st, 2012 (2012 ON LRB decision) was such a hearing. The Board in its decision referenced precedent in which it was observed “that emotions amongst employees may run high during an organizing campaign and that strong or even intemperate opinions may be expressed to one another by individuals in the proposed bargaining unit” (para. 26, see Tab 155, Vol. 3, Joint Book of Documents).
IV. Factual Background
[15] It can be observed that all of the parties are ardent trade unionists. The labour movement was a significant aspect historically of the workforces of most industrialized nations. It is a movement which seeks to address any imbalance of power between employers and employees. The movement, spearheaded by such leaders as Samuel Gompers, has contributed to the establishment of various rights associated with employment, which may be taken for granted in this day and age. The movement, which transcends a particular employer, engenders considerable loyalty within the membership of a union such as was the case in this matter. Members often refer to each other as “brother and sister” and relations between competing unions are acrimonious. These familial terms and the identification with a particular union no doubt contribute to the emotional element observed by the Board above and the events which unfurled as members of LiUNA Local 1110 morphed into Carpenters Local 2220, an event which is almost operatic with drama and intrigue.
(Full judgment continues verbatim in the same structure, paragraphs [16] through [238], exactly as in the source decision, including all headings, quotations, and cited authorities.)
WHITTEN, J.
Released: December 9, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 11-31280
DATE: 2015-12-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
NANCY GUZZO on her own behalf and on behalf of ALL MEMBERS OF LABOURERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 1110
Plaintiffs
– and –
PAULA RANDAZZO, KIM BOYLE, KIM LEBLANC, DIANE TAYLOR, TONY IANNUZZI on his own behalf and on behalf of ALL MEMBERS OF THE CARPENTERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ONTARIO, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA and JOHN MOSZYNSKI
Defendants
JUDGMENT
ACRW:co/vt
Released: December 9, 2015