Appendix A Cases
The cases in Appendix A deal with the following issues:
Case: Issues:
Colpoy’s Bay News, text page 345 Application of a union shop provision and
union governance
Hay Lake Manufacturing, text page 346 Recognition, bargaining unit work, and job
posting provisions; arbitration and
remedies; successor rights
Lakeshore Casino, text page 347 Rules established by management,
discrimination, and the review of discipline
by an arbitrator
Timberwolf Family Counselling, text page Incorporation of human rights legislation
348 and other employment statutes into
collective agreements; dismissal of a
probationary employee
Eat Rite Ltd., text page 349 Union organizing campaign, employer unfair
labour practices
North Tea Trucking, text page 351 Appropriate bargaining unit, statutory
freeze, employer unfair labour practice, and
remedies
Reliable Auto Parts, text page 352 The withdrawal or lapse of an offer in
, negotiations; duty to bargain in good faith
Baysville School Board, text page 353 Possible unfair labour practice relating to
the termination of an employee during a
union organizing campaign
Goodtime Food Products Ltd., text page 355 Discipline and discharge, review of
termination by arbitration
Clarity Call, text page 355 Application of hybrid seniority, job
competition
Ottawa Hospital, text page 356 Job competition, determination of ability,
discrimination
Regional Transit Commission, text page 357 Job competition, testing by employer
Colpoy’s Bay News page 345
This case illustrates the internal procedures that may be involved in union governance
referred to in Chapter 3. It is based upon Pacific Newspaper Group Inc., and CEP Local 2000,
136 L.A.C. (4th) 22. The Pacific Newspaper case is an arbitration decision where the employer
filed a grievance relating to the union shop and application for membership provisions in
the collective agreement. The Colpoy’s case was not framed as a grievance because the
grievance and arbitration concepts are explained in Chapter 7; however, instructors may
wish to refer to the grievance process to emphasize that it is the way disputes are resolved
in a unionized workplace. The case could also be referred to after the union security concept
is considered in Chapter 7.
,1. What is your assessment of the fairness of the union procedure?
The process appears to be fair in the sense that the employee has been given an opportunity
to be heard. Some students may think that the end result is not fair – that an employee
should not be required to become a union member to obtain a job. A discussion revolving
around the issue of whether union membership should be compulsory could be encouraged.
2. If you were on the appeals committee, what would your decision have been?
This question requires an opinion. The following is a possible question to pose or consider:
If the union grants membership to individuals who may cross a picket line, will the
effectiveness of a strike not be reduced? In Pacific Newspaper the arbitrator dismissed the
employer's grievance. It was found that the union had complied with its constitution and
the decision was not clearly unreasonable.
3. In some jurisdictions, labour relations legislation provides that a union cannot
expel a member or suspend membership for any reason other than the failure to pay
union dues. Are you in favour of such a provision?
As noted in the question, some jurisdictions place restrictions on the expulsion of union
members by preventing an expulsion for any reason other than the failure to pay union
dues. This provision appears to reduce the union’s control or authority over members
because a member could not be expelled for action such as crossing a picket line.
Accordingly, this provision could be viewed as increasing individual freedom at the cost of
union solidarity.
Hay Lake Manufacturing page 346
, This case relates to successor rights in Chapter 6; collective agreement terms in Chapter 7,
including recognition, bargaining unit work, and job posting; and arbitration and remedies
in Chapter 9. The case is based upon Worthington Cylinders of Canada Corp., and U.S.W.A.
Local 9143 123 LAC (4th) 248.
1. If you were a union officer, how would you respond to the employer’s position?
The union would respond that the fact that the collective agreement was signed by a
previous owner is irrelevant. Pursuant to the successor rights provisions of labour relations
legislation a purchaser of a business such as Hay Lake is bound by the collective agreement.
Further, the issue to be determined is whether the two jobs created in the warehouse were
covered by the recognition article in the agreement. The recognition article refers to all
employees of the company in Winnipeg and does not contain any exceptions for part-time
employees. Neither of the two jobs in the warehouse should be classified as managerial.
Although Singh may provide some direction to Olson, this is along the lines of a lead hand.
There is nothing to indicate that Singh has the authority to high, fire, discipline or make any
other managerial decisions. The fact that the warehouse positions are not referred to in the
collective agreement is not relevant.
2. Assume that you are the arbitrator hearing this matter and explain what your
decision would be.
In the case that this situation is based upon the arbitrator found that the warehouse
positions were covered by the collective agreement and the work performed by the
employees was bargaining unit work. The arbitrator found that the employer had breached
Article 4 of the collective agreement by assigning the work to non-bargaining unit
employees and breached Article 20 because it failed to post the jobs. The employer was
ordered to post the jobs.
Although this case is simple, and it is difficult to understand why an employer would take
this to arbitration it does illustrate some critical points. The wording of the recognition
clause in the agreement is critical to determine who is covered by the agreement. Here the
recognition article did not refer to the location of the plant; it referred to all employees in
the city of Winnipeg. The recognition article may cover additions to the bargaining unit as
the business changes. Arbitrators have the authority to order the employer to comply with
The cases in Appendix A deal with the following issues:
Case: Issues:
Colpoy’s Bay News, text page 345 Application of a union shop provision and
union governance
Hay Lake Manufacturing, text page 346 Recognition, bargaining unit work, and job
posting provisions; arbitration and
remedies; successor rights
Lakeshore Casino, text page 347 Rules established by management,
discrimination, and the review of discipline
by an arbitrator
Timberwolf Family Counselling, text page Incorporation of human rights legislation
348 and other employment statutes into
collective agreements; dismissal of a
probationary employee
Eat Rite Ltd., text page 349 Union organizing campaign, employer unfair
labour practices
North Tea Trucking, text page 351 Appropriate bargaining unit, statutory
freeze, employer unfair labour practice, and
remedies
Reliable Auto Parts, text page 352 The withdrawal or lapse of an offer in
, negotiations; duty to bargain in good faith
Baysville School Board, text page 353 Possible unfair labour practice relating to
the termination of an employee during a
union organizing campaign
Goodtime Food Products Ltd., text page 355 Discipline and discharge, review of
termination by arbitration
Clarity Call, text page 355 Application of hybrid seniority, job
competition
Ottawa Hospital, text page 356 Job competition, determination of ability,
discrimination
Regional Transit Commission, text page 357 Job competition, testing by employer
Colpoy’s Bay News page 345
This case illustrates the internal procedures that may be involved in union governance
referred to in Chapter 3. It is based upon Pacific Newspaper Group Inc., and CEP Local 2000,
136 L.A.C. (4th) 22. The Pacific Newspaper case is an arbitration decision where the employer
filed a grievance relating to the union shop and application for membership provisions in
the collective agreement. The Colpoy’s case was not framed as a grievance because the
grievance and arbitration concepts are explained in Chapter 7; however, instructors may
wish to refer to the grievance process to emphasize that it is the way disputes are resolved
in a unionized workplace. The case could also be referred to after the union security concept
is considered in Chapter 7.
,1. What is your assessment of the fairness of the union procedure?
The process appears to be fair in the sense that the employee has been given an opportunity
to be heard. Some students may think that the end result is not fair – that an employee
should not be required to become a union member to obtain a job. A discussion revolving
around the issue of whether union membership should be compulsory could be encouraged.
2. If you were on the appeals committee, what would your decision have been?
This question requires an opinion. The following is a possible question to pose or consider:
If the union grants membership to individuals who may cross a picket line, will the
effectiveness of a strike not be reduced? In Pacific Newspaper the arbitrator dismissed the
employer's grievance. It was found that the union had complied with its constitution and
the decision was not clearly unreasonable.
3. In some jurisdictions, labour relations legislation provides that a union cannot
expel a member or suspend membership for any reason other than the failure to pay
union dues. Are you in favour of such a provision?
As noted in the question, some jurisdictions place restrictions on the expulsion of union
members by preventing an expulsion for any reason other than the failure to pay union
dues. This provision appears to reduce the union’s control or authority over members
because a member could not be expelled for action such as crossing a picket line.
Accordingly, this provision could be viewed as increasing individual freedom at the cost of
union solidarity.
Hay Lake Manufacturing page 346
, This case relates to successor rights in Chapter 6; collective agreement terms in Chapter 7,
including recognition, bargaining unit work, and job posting; and arbitration and remedies
in Chapter 9. The case is based upon Worthington Cylinders of Canada Corp., and U.S.W.A.
Local 9143 123 LAC (4th) 248.
1. If you were a union officer, how would you respond to the employer’s position?
The union would respond that the fact that the collective agreement was signed by a
previous owner is irrelevant. Pursuant to the successor rights provisions of labour relations
legislation a purchaser of a business such as Hay Lake is bound by the collective agreement.
Further, the issue to be determined is whether the two jobs created in the warehouse were
covered by the recognition article in the agreement. The recognition article refers to all
employees of the company in Winnipeg and does not contain any exceptions for part-time
employees. Neither of the two jobs in the warehouse should be classified as managerial.
Although Singh may provide some direction to Olson, this is along the lines of a lead hand.
There is nothing to indicate that Singh has the authority to high, fire, discipline or make any
other managerial decisions. The fact that the warehouse positions are not referred to in the
collective agreement is not relevant.
2. Assume that you are the arbitrator hearing this matter and explain what your
decision would be.
In the case that this situation is based upon the arbitrator found that the warehouse
positions were covered by the collective agreement and the work performed by the
employees was bargaining unit work. The arbitrator found that the employer had breached
Article 4 of the collective agreement by assigning the work to non-bargaining unit
employees and breached Article 20 because it failed to post the jobs. The employer was
ordered to post the jobs.
Although this case is simple, and it is difficult to understand why an employer would take
this to arbitration it does illustrate some critical points. The wording of the recognition
clause in the agreement is critical to determine who is covered by the agreement. Here the
recognition article did not refer to the location of the plant; it referred to all employees in
the city of Winnipeg. The recognition article may cover additions to the bargaining unit as
the business changes. Arbitrators have the authority to order the employer to comply with
