Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 168, Noviembre 1977

151. This case was already examined by the Committee at its session in November 1976 when it presented to the Governing Body an interim report which is contained in paragraphs 333 to 392 of the Committee's 160th Report.

1. 151. This case was already examined by the Committee at its session in November 1976 when it presented to the Governing Body an interim report which is contained in paragraphs 333 to 392 of the Committee's 160th Report.
2. 152. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 153. The allegations in this case mainly concerned the efforts made by the Canadian Workers' Union to obtain certification as the exclusive bargaining agent in the Canron, Frankel and Star Steel companies. The complainants had contended that the management of the respective companies and the local unions of the United Steelworkers of America, acting in concert, had committed acts designed to prevent the Canadian Workers' Union from organising the workers in the respective companies including, in particular, the dismissal of three CWU organisers. In the second place the complainants had alleged that in the course of the proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board in connection with the CWU's applications for certification as bargaining agent, dilatory tactics had been adopted by the Board itself with a view to delaying or preventing the granting of certification to the CWU.
2. 154. In its interim conclusions concerning this case the Committee had noted that in the case of Frankel Ltd., following a vote taken by order of the Board the CWU did not obtain a majority of the votes and that the majority had been obtained by the opposing union, namely Shopmen's Local 743. In the case of Canron Ltd. the Committee noted that the CWU, having obtained a majority of the votes, had been certified on 22 January 1976 as bargaining agent for a group of employees at Canron. As regards Star Steel Ltd., a preheating vote had been held following a decision taken by the Board on 26 March 1976 and the CWU had received a majority of the votes. The decision of the Board on a further intervention made by the opposing union was still pending and the Committee had accordingly recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to communicate the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in this case.
3. 155. As regards the allegations concerning the dismissed CWU leaders, Mr. E. Conlan, Mr. Taubert and Mr. C. Browne, the first hearings before the Labour Relations Board had taken place on 22 and 23 October 1975. The Board had decided to deal with these complaints separately and a number of hearings had been held between October 1975 and April 1976. According to the Government further hearings had been scheduled for 19, 21 and 26 May 1976. The Government had explained in this connection that the normal hearing time at the Labour Relations Board for this type of case was one day. The unusual number of hearings required for this case reflected the fact that all the parties had indicated no desire to proceed in an expeditious manner. All the parties had engaged in time-consuming argument on procedural disputes as well as insisting on lengthy examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses. The Government had added that the Board had scheduled and continued to schedule hearings on these matters as quickly as its workload would permit. The Committee had recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to communicate the decisions of the Labour Relations Board regarding the three CWU leaders.
4. 156. In a further communication dated 17 March 1977 the Government, in response to the requests made by the Governing Body, transmitted additional information in connection with the position of the complainant union in the Star Steel Company Ltd. and concerning the three CWU leaders who had been dismissed. The Government also transmitted the texts of the various decisions taken by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding these matters. In addition, the Government supplied information and other decisions of the Board which relate to matters concerning the complainant union but in respect of which no allegations have been made.
5. 157. As regards the hearings in connection with the application of the CWU for recognition in the Star Steel Company Ltd., the Government states that the Board continued its hearing on the application on 3 and 18 May 1976. The Government adds that on 20 May 1976 the Board issued a written decision certifying the CWU as the bargaining agent at Star Steel.
6. 158. As regards the hearings of the Board concerning the cases of Mr. Conlan, Mr. Taubert and Mr. Browne, the Government states that hearings continued on 21 and 22 June 1976 and were concluded on 24 June 1976. On 17 August 1976, continues the Government, the Board released an oral decision ordering Claude Browne to be reinstated and awarding compensation. On 2 September 1976 the Board reduced its oral decision to writing and on 26 November 1976 the Board issued the complete reasons for its decision in writing. The Government adds that having been advised by the parties that they were unable to agree on compensation, the Board awarded $7,675.20 for loss of earnings.
7. 159. The Government adds that on 13 August 1976 the Board commenced its hearings in connection with the complaint lodged by Mr. Taubert. The Board held that it would not consolidate Mr. Taubert's and Mr. Conlan's complaints. The Board further ordered that the respondent to the complaint, namely Canron Ltd., should proceed first with its evidence, holding that since the burden of proof was on the respondent it should proceed first. Following this decision Canron Ltd. filed notice of an application for judicial review of the decision that it should proceed first. This application, added the Government, was still pending and no date for hearing had been set. Notwithstanding the application for judicial review, the Board hearings continued on 17, 19, 23 and 31 August, 1 and 2 September, 16, 17, 18, 23, 2u and 30 November, 1, 8, 10, 15 and 22 December 1976, and 8, 10 and 23 February 1977.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  160. 160 The Committee notes from the information and documentation supplied by the Government that the Ontario Labour Relations Board, following the procedures laid down in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, declared the complainant union entitled to negotiating rights in the Star Steel Company Ltd. on 20 May 1976. The Committee also notes that one of the CWU leaders, Mr. C. Browne, has been reinstated and that hearings are continuing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board as regards the two other CWU leaders who were dismissed.
  161. 161 In its previous report the Committee had pointed out that as regards the accusation that dilatory tactics had been used by the Labour Relations Board itself to prevent the CWU from obtaining certification, it had appeared from the records of proceedings of the Board which had been supplied by the Government that the Board had expedited the completion of the proceedings and that where delays did occur these had been occasioned mainly by applications made by one of the parties challenging the trade union status of the other organisation and appealing to a court of law for judicial review of interim decisions taken by the Board. The Committee also considered that although certain evidence had been produced by the complainant union to indicate that attempts had been made both by the rival union and by certain members of the management of Canron Ltd. to prevent the complainant union from organising or becoming the certified bargaining agent of the workers concerned, it had not been established that the Government had in any way acted improperly in connection with the acts which were stated to have been committed. In addition the Committee observed that the Ontario Labour Relations Act contains a number of important safeguards against acts of anti-union discrimination by employers and from all the information now before the Committee it would appear that while it is the case that the proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board are sometimes lengthy, this is due, to a certain extent, to the attitudes of the parties and to recourse to judicial proceedings in order to challenge interim decisions of the Board.