S. McCormack

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union applied for certification for employees at various Swiss Chalet restaurants.

The respondents and interveners argued the applications were untimely due to an existing collective agreement between the Swiss Chalet Employers' Association (SCEA) and the Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees (CURRE).

Local 88 intervened, claiming to be the successor to CURRE following a merger.

The Board found that the attempted merger between CURRE and Local 88 was legally ineffective due to non-compliance with CURRE's constitutional notice requirements.

The Board also determined that the SCEA was a valid employers' organization and its agreement with CURRE was a collective agreement.

However, franchisee respondents who applied for SCEA membership after its formation were not automatically bound by the agreement.

The Board further held that the franchising of locations by Foodcorp constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Act.

The applicant union filed multiple certification applications for employees at various Swiss Chalet restaurants.

The respondent employers and intervener unions argued the applications were untimely due to existing collective agreements.

The applicant alleged that the employer had previously provided covert support to the intervener union by hiring undercover operatives to assist in its organizing campaign, thereby invalidating the existing collective agreements under sections 13 and 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer did violate section 64 by providing covert support, but because the intervener union was unaware of this support, its independence was not compromised.

Consequently, the existing collective agreements remained valid, and most of the certification applications were dismissed as untimely.

The union filed grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting concrete forming work to employers who used members of the Labourers' union rather than the Carpenters' union.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and that the Board should defer to the section 91 jurisdictional dispute mechanism.

The Board adjourned the section 124 proceedings for 21 days to allow the respondent to file a jurisdictional dispute, noting that the panel seized with the jurisdictional dispute would be the more appropriate forum to resolve all aspects of the case.