UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Unit determination under the labour code Jordan, Donald James 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A64 J67.pdf [ 7.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077615.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077615-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077615-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077615-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077615-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077615-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077615-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077615-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077615.ris

Full Text

UNIT DETERMINATION UNDER THE LABOUR CODE by DONALD JAMES JORDAN B.A. (HONS.), LL.B. UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES . i n the F a c u l t y o f Law We ac c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f i r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1978 © Donald James Jordan, 1978 In present ing t h i s thes i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y sha l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fu r the r agree that permission for extens ive copying of th i s thes is fo r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s rep resenta t i ves . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of th i s thes i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be al lowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion . Department of Law The Un ive rs i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date September 1, 1978 (i) ABSTRACT The s t r u c t u r e of b a r g a i n i n g u n i t s and the p r i n c i p l e s governing t h e i r c r e a t i o n have not been the s u b j e c t of e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s i n Canadian labour law. I t i s the o b j e c t of t h i s work to canvass the work of the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board i n t h i s area. The i n t r o d u c t o r y p o r t i o n of t h i s study focusses on the c o n c e p t u a l a l t e r n a t i v e s which u n d e r l i e the process of u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n and i d e n t i f i e s the concerns of the p a r t i e s t o t h a t p r o c e s s . A g a i n s t t h i s background, the study reviews the process of u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n as i t t r a n s p i r e d p r i o r t o the passage of the Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia, S.B.C. 1973 (2nd Sess.) c. 122 and amendments t h e r e t o . Four c a t e g o r i e s of i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r s are i s o l a t e d and commented upon. The t h e s i s concludes w i t h an e x t e n s i v e examination of the j u r i s p r u d e n c e of the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board as i t r e l a t e s to the process of u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n . F u r t h e r , an i n q u i r y i s made i n t o other areas which are concerned w i t h the s t r u c t u r e of b a r g a i n i n g to determine whether there i s c o n s i s t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n of p o l i c y . The c o n c l u s i o n s reached are t h a t the approach f o l l o w e d by the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board i s a worthwhile model and i s c o n s i s t e n t i n i t s i s o l a t i o n of the s t r u c t u r e of b a r g a i n i n g as a major f a c t o r i n i n d u s t r i a l u n r e s t . ( i i ) CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE BARGAINING UNIT A. The Concept of M a j o r i t y Rule i n Labour R e l a t i o n s B. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the A p p r o p r i a t e U n i t - Concerns of the P a r t i e s C. The P h i l o s o p h i e s o f U n i t D e t e r m i n a t i o n Page 1 12 19 CHAPTER I I DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE UNIT PRIOR TO THE BRITISH COLUMBIA LABOUR CODE A. F a c t o r s C o n s i d e r e d i n P r e v i o u s D e t e r m i n a t i o n s B. The F a c t o r s : (I) I n s t i t u t i o n a l Arrangements (II) Nature of Work (III) P r e s e r v i n g the freedom of c h o i c e o f the p a r t i e s (IV) P o l i c y C o n s i d e r a t i o n s C. Comments 30 36 41 44 48 51 CHAPTER I I I , UNIT DETERMINATION UNDER THE LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A. A c q u i s i t i o n o f B a r g a i n i n g R i g h t s B. The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Process C. S t a t u t o r y L i m i t a t i o n s on the Board's D i s c r e t i o n t o Determine the A p p r o p r i a t e U n i t (I) Bars t o C e r t i f i c a t i o n (i) Employer Dominated or I n f l u e n c e d U n i t s ( i i ) P r i o r C e r t i f i c a t i o n Bar ( i i i ) C o l l e c t i v e Agreement Bar 54 56 60 61 64 65 ( i i i ) Page D. ( i v ) P r i o r A p p l i c a t i o n 67 Bar (v) D i s c r e t i o n a r y Bar 68 (II) Other P r e l i m i n a r y M a t t e r s 69 A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s under the Labour Code (I) G e n e r a l P o l i c y 73 ( I D P u b l i c S e c t o r U n i t s 80 (III) E x c e p t i o n s t o the G e n e r a l P o l i c y 81 ( i ) A dmission t o the C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Regime ( i i ) Community of I n t e r e s t 85 U n i t D e t e r m i n a t i o n Under S p e c i a l Circumstances (I) S p e c i a l I n t e r e s t U n i t s 94 ( i ) C r a f t o r P r o f e s s i o n a l 95 U n i t s ( i i ) S u p e r v i s o r y U n i t s 101 ( i i i ) Dependent C o n t r a c t o r 106 U n i t s Civ) M u l t i - E m p l o y e r U n i t s 109 ( I D U n i t M o d i f i c a t i o n 111 (i) V a r i a n c e 112 ( i i ) S uccessor U n i t s 117 (III). C o a l i t i o n B a r g a i n i n g 122 ( i ) C o u n c i l s o f Trade- 122 Unions ( i i ) A c c r e d i t a t i o n 126 CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSIONS 129 B i b l i o g r a p h y 133 (iv) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am deeply i n d e b t e d t o P r o f e s s o r M.A. H i c k l i n g f o r h i s c o n s i s t e n t l y p a t i e n t and h e l p f u l i n t e r e s t i n t h i s e f f o r t . I t was, i n f a c t , he who convinced me of the importance of r e s e a r c h i n t o t h i s area o f the law. Over and above h i s encouragement, he has been a s t e a d y i n g i n f l u e n c e whose c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m s have c o n s i d e r a b l y improved the q u a l i t y of t h i s work. I am of course g r a t e f u l t o the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Law Foun d a t i o n o f B r i t i s h Columbia f o r t h e i r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . Without t h e i r h e l p , i t would not have been p o s s i b l e . I a l s o owe a g r e a t d e a l t o the s t a f f of the Labour R e l a t i o n s Board o f B r i t i s h Columbia f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and f r i e n d s h i p , e s p e c i a l l y t o Susan C h i u f o r her a b l e e f f o r t s a t t y p i n g p o r t i o n s of t h i s work. A l s o the s t a f f a t the F a c u l t y of Law a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, e s p e c i a l l y P r o f e s s o r s P e t e r G a l l and Joseph W e i l e r . J F i n a l l y , and most i m p o r t a n t l y , thanks are owed to e m o t i o n a l l y i n s p i r a t i o n a l s o u r c e s . To my pa r e n t s and f a m i l y , who have always encouraged me these l o n g y e a r s ; thank you. To my w i f e , Joanne, I t h i n k she r e a l i z e s the importance t o me of her p a t i e n c e and l o v e ; thank you. - 1 -Chapter One - The Bargaining Unit A. The Concept of Majority Rule i n Labour Relations The introduction of labour l e g i s l a t i o n i n North America brought the p r i n c i p l e of majority rule to the f i e l d of i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s . P r i o r to l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r -vention, c o n f l i c t s between employers and employees over the p r i n c i p l e of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining had been the cause of violence and unrest„ In t h i s atmosphere there was a need to create a system whereby the employees could exercise power to counter-balance that possessed by the employer. This type of balance could only be achieved by the creation of a regime i n which a bargaining representative was chosen by a majority of the employees of an employer to bargain on behalf of a l l the employees of that employer. Since t h i s involved the curtailment of the r i g h t s of those employees i n the minority to s e l e c t a bargaining agent of t h e i r own choice and i n f r i n g e d upon the notion of freedom of contract, the idea of majority rule had to undergo a process of f r u i t i o n . The modern notion of a bargaining u n i t as a group of employees found by l e g i s l a t i v e mandate to be appropriate to engage i n c o l l e c t i v e bargaining as exclusive representative of the employees i n the group i s the end r e s u l t of t h i s process. - 2 -The early development of labour r e l a t i o n s law took place i n the United States. Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n has had the opportunity to b e n e f i t from the United States experience and generally i t can be said that our labour l e g i s l a t i o n i s patterned a f t e r our neighbour's. The United States was f a r more heavily i n d u s t r i a l i z e d than Canada i n the early part of the twentieth century and t h i s provided the impetus f o r the development of labour r e l a t i o n s law i n that time period. Therefore, i n order that the bargaining u n i t can be traced to i t s h i s t o r i c a l sources, i t i s useful to consider b r i e f l y the United States experience. The e a r l i e s t recognition of the p r i n c i p l e of majority rule came i n the decision of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Assoc-i a t i o n of Machinists et a l . v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa  Fe Railway^^ '. This concerned a d e c i s i o n of the Railway Labour Board exercising powers.granted to i t by the Trans-portation Act of 1 9 2 0 ^ 2\ The Board decided that the r a i l -way and the employees should s e t t l e a dispute between them by following the working r u l e s of the Board, inclu d i n g a r u l e which had the e f f e c t of binding the minority to any (1) 2 Dec. U.S.R.L. Board 87, 96 ( 1921) . (2) ^1 Stat. >56 ( 1 9 2 0 ) . - 3 -agreement reached by the majority, subject to the r i g h t of the minority to present grievances, e i t h e r i n person or by representatives of t h e i r own choice, to t h e i r em-ployer. I t has been pointed out that t h i s case was not only important f o r i t s recognition of the p r i n c i p l e of majority rule but also f o r i t s i m p l i c a t i o n that "the min-o r i t y i n any (group) would not constitute a separate unit"^ The working rules were incorporated i n t o statute law by the (it,) (c.) 193^ amendments to the Railway Labour A c t w . The next development was on a na t i o n a l l e v e l (6) with the passage of the National I n d u s t r i a l Recovery Act which gave employees the r i g h t to bargain c o l l e c t i v e l y through representatives of t h e i r own choosing and the r i g h t to organize without being discriminated against by employers. The Act did not s p e c i f y whether each employee could s e l e c t his own representative or whether he was bound to be represented by an agent elected by the majority of the employees. However, the National Labour Board as constituted under t h i s Act, decided that the bargaining (3) Cohen, The Appropriate Bargaining Unit Under the Nat- i o n a l Labour Relations Act. 39 Co.L.Rev. 1110,1111 ( 1 9 3 9 ) . (if-) 48 Stat. 1187 ( 1934) , ^5 U.S.C. 152 ( 1 9 3 4 ) . (5) 44 Stat. 577 (1926) , 45 U.S.C. 151-163 (193*0. (6) 48 Stat. 198 (1933) , 15 U.S.C. 707 ( 1 9 3 4 ) . - 4 -agent chosen by the majority was the exclusive bargaining agent f o r a l l the employees i n the u n i t . y The National I n d u s t r i a l Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional i n Schechter Poultry Corp. v. (8) United States because of the sweeping powers i t gave to the President to approve or prescribe as he f e l t advisable for the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and expansion of trade or industry. Under the United States Constitution, l e g i s l a t i v e powers are granted s o l e l y to Congress and the Court f e l t that the code making power conferred on the President to be an unconstitutional delegation of l e g i s l a t i v e power. This meant that labour l e g i s l a t i o n had to be placed before Congress and approved. The interim period between the demise of the National I n d u s t r i a l Recovery Act and any new l e g i s l a t i o n gave both employers and employees the opportunity to present t h e i r views of the p r i n c i p l e of majority r u l e . The espousals of each side w i l l be examin-ed i n order to set the stage f o r the next l e g i s l a t i v e development. The opponents of the majority rule p r i n c i p l e (7) Houde Engineering Corp. 1 N.L.R.B. 35, Case No. 12 (1934).; Denver Tramway Corp. 1 N.L.R.B. 64 (1934). (8) 295 U.S. 443 U 9 3 5 ) . - 5 -sought support-chiefly on moral and emotional issues. Following the reasoning of the Schechter decision they proclaimed that any new l e g i s l a t i o n which conferred j u r i s -d i c t i o n on the fed e r a l government over manufacturing or pro-duction of a l o c a l nature would be unco n s t i t u t i o n a l . I t was hoped that repeated reference to the Con s t i t u t i o n would marshall public s upport.^) The other major argument centred around the denial of r i g h t s to i n d i v i d u a l s or mi n o r i t i e s which i s attendant upon the a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e . Once again t h i s issue was framed i n very emotional terms i n the b e l i e f that t h i s would a t t r a c t more s u p p o r t . T h e public was t o l d that the adoption of majority r u l e would ( 9 ) see, Cortner, The Wagner Act Cases, ( 1 9 6 4 ) p.73 quot-ing from a memorandum of the American L i b e r t y League: "Nor do I believe that many issues could command more support or evoke more enthusiasm among our people than the simple issue of the 'Constitution*. The public experience concerning i t i s dense and inexperienced, but, nevertheless, there i s a mighty, though vague, a f f e c t i o n f o r i t . The people, I believe, need merely to be l e d and instructed, and t h i s a f f e c t i o n w i l l become almost worship." ( 1 0 ) James Emery, general counsel f o r the National Association of Manufacturers phrased i t : " I t i s the r i g h t of a man to make a contract to enter into engagements f o r the sale of his labour or f o r the sale of his goods or f o r the sale of his ta l e n t , or f o r the sale of his services i n any way he pleases. . . Freedom of contract i s the r u l e , r e s t r a i n t the exception." Congressional Record, 7 4 t h Cong. 1 s t sess., pp. 5 9 3 , 6 3 7 . - 6 -lead to the creation of closed and union shops thereby-denying i n d i v i d u a l s any r i g h t to work^ 1 1^, and the loss of personal contact between the i n d i v i d u a l employee and the employer. One non-emotional issue also arose. Employers claimed that the economic f a i l u r e which had necessitated the measures of the National I n d u s t r i a l Recovery Act was now past and that the concept of majority r u l e , though i t may have been necessary to stimulate recovery, was no longer needed. The advocates of majority r u l e based t h e i r arguments on the f o s t e r i n g of healthy c o l l e c t i v e bargain-(13) ing. y The existence of i n e q u a l i t y i n bargaining power between employees and employers had already l e d to near economic disas t e r and the advocates of majority r u l e saw no method of maintaining a proper equilibrium. The fears f o r the l o s s of the r i g h t s of the minority were assuaged by reference to the f a c t that union representation was a r e s u l t of an e l e c t o r a l process and therefore representation ( 1 1 ) This type of argument i s s t i l l prevalent: see Right  to Work: Pro and Con 17 Lab L.J. 1 3 1 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . ( 1 2 ) supra, footnote 9 , at pp. 4 4 - 7 1 f o r an e x c e l l e n t analysis of the economic conditions which generated the need f o r the National I n d u s t r i a l Recovery Act. ( 1 3 ) see fGitlow, Labour and I n d u s t r i a l Society, ( 1 9 6 3 ) , pp. 4 3 6 - 4 4 0 f o r an i l l u m i n a t i o n of both sides of the question. was not an i n f l e x i b l e concept. The elected representative would have to be responsive to minority opinion or face the l i k e l i h o o d of t h i s minority persuading enough of t h e i r fellow employees to remove the incumbent. Employ-ees were reminded that c o l l e c t i v e bargaining was much more e f f e c t i v e than i n d i v i d u a l bargaining f o r , unless possessed of some extraordinary s k i l l s , the average employee's freedom of choice amounted to accepting the employer's o f f e r or l o s i n g h i s job. I t was i n t h i s climate that the National Labour (14) ( Relations Aet, more commonly known as the Wagner Act, was passed. The Act recognized the p r i n c i p l e of majority ru l e and representation by an exclusive bargaining agent. I t i s important to be aware of the nature of the recognition given by the Wagner Act f o r "the concept of a bargaining unit was brought into i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s analysis as a l e g a l t e r m " ^ 1 ^ . The introduction of the (14) 49 Stat. 3 7 2 , 29 U.S.C.A. (Supp. 1 9 3 5 ) . ( 1 5 ) In reference to Senator Robert F. Wagner, then Chairman of the National Labour Board and prime mover behind the l e g i s l a t i o n . ( 1 6 ) Chamberlain, Determinants of C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining  Structures as found i n Weber, The Structure of C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining, p. 7 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . - 8 -l e g a l element came i n the provisions of s . 9 . Section 9(a) allowed c o l l e c t i v e "bargaining "by a representative elected by the "majority of the employees i n a un i t ( 1 7 ) Sec . 9«(a) Representatives designated or selected f o r the purposes of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining by the majority of the employees i n a unit appropriate f o r such purposes, s h a l l be the exclusive representa-t i v e s of a l l the employees i n such unit f o r the purposes of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i n respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any i n d i v -i d u a l employee or a group of employees s h a l l have the r i g h t at any time to present grievances to t h e i r employer. Ib) The Board s h a l l decide i n each case whether, i n order to insure to employees the f u l l b e n e f i t of t h e i r r i g h t to s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n and to c o l l e c t -ive bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the p o l i c i e s of t h i s Act, the un i t appropriate f o r the purposes of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining s h a l l be the employer unit, c r a f t unit, plant unit,,or sub-d i v i s i o n thereof. (c) Whenever a question a f f e c t i n g commerce a r i s e s concerning the representation of employees, the Board may investigate such controversy and c e r t i f y to the pa r t i e s , i n writing, the name or names of the representatives that have been designated or selected. In any such i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the Board s h a l l provide f o r an appropriate hearing upon due notice, e i t h e r i n conjunction with a proceeding under section 1 0 or otherwise, and may take a secret b a l l o t of employees, or u t i l i z e any other su i t a b l e method to a s c e r t i n such representatives. (d) Whenever an order of the Board made pursu-ant to section 1 0 (c) i s based i n whole or i n part upon f a c t s c e r t i f i e d following an i n v e s t i g a t i o n pursuant to subsection (c) of t h i s section, and there i s a p e t i t i o n f o r the enforcement or review of such order, such c e r t i f i c a t i o n and the record of such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l be included i n the t r a n s c r i p t of the entire record required to be f i l e d under subsections 1 0 (e) or 1 0 ( f ) , and thereupon the decree of the court enforcing, modi-fyi n g , or se t t i n g aside i n whole or i n part the order of the Board s h a l l be made and entered upon the plead-ings, testimony, and proceedings set for-Hi i n such t r a n s c r i p t . ix"' - 9 -appropriate f o r such purposes", (emphasis added) The additi o n of the word "appropriate" added a heretofore non-existent consideration. The r a t i o n a l e behind t h i s a d d i t i o n a l consideration was to allow the National Labour Board to define the electorate i n which representative e l e c t i o n s were to be held. This negated the p o s s i b i l i t y of employers impeding the advent of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining by ref u s i n g to agree to the area of the unit and prevented u t i l i z a t i o n of divide and conquer t a c t i c s which would blunt the attempt to achieve a balance of power. I t also gave the N.L.R.B. room i n which to manoeuvre i n order to take into account a l l the f a c t o r s advanced i n argument by both sides p r i o r (1 8) to the passage of the Act. This l e g i s l a t i o n was one of the proximate causes f o r ensuring r a p i d growth of the (19) trade union movement. 7 The p r i n c i p l e of majority r u l e ( 1 8 ) Described by Braun, The Right to Organize and i t s Lim i t s , ( 1 9 5 0 ) P° 1 9 5 as having to "(safeguard) simul-taneously the freedom of assoc i a t i o n , and the freedom from association; the r i g h t to pursue his c a l l i n g without belonging to an association; i n d i v i d u a l freedom of contract, and c o l l e c t i v e bargaining; the r i g h t of organizations to r e c r u i t members, and the freedom of the i n d i v i d u a l from undue pressure to make him j o i n . " Note the concession e x p l i c i t i n the proviso to s . 9 ( a ) . ( 1 9 ) see, Chamberlain, C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining i n the Unit-ed States found i n Sturmthal, Contemporary C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining i n Seven Countries, ( 1 9 5 7 ) P« 2 5 2 . - 10 -has remained a constant i n United States Labour r e l a t i o n s l e g i s l a t i o n since that time. In Canada, the concept of the bargaining uni t did not appear u n t i l the passage of the C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining Act of O n t a r i o ^ 0 ' 1 although the name applied (21) to i t was a " c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agency . There was no requirement that t h i s agency be elected by the majority of the employees nor was t h i s agency the exclusive agent of a l l the employees. However, as was the case under the National I n d u s t r i a l Recovery Act, the p r i n c i p l e of majority ( 09) r u l e arose from case law. The only other labour l e g i s l a t -ion e x i s t i n g at t h i s time was the Federal I n d u s t r i a l Disputes (23) Investigation Act J which was not meant to protect f r e e -dom of as s o c i a t i o n and c o l l e c t i v e bargaining but only to (24 s e t t l e s p e c i f i c disputes r e f e r r e d by employers or employees ( 2 0 ) Statutes of Ontario 1 9 4 3 c . 4 , s . 2 . ( 2 1 ) i b i d . , s . l ( b ) . ( 2 2 ) United S t e e l Workers of America, Lo c a l 1 0 0 5 v. S t e e l  Co. of Canada L t d . and Independent S t e e l Worker's  Association, [ 1 9 4 4 3 2 D.L.R. 5 8 3 (Ont. S.C, Labour Court). ( 2 3 ) R.S.C. 1 9 2 7 c . 1 1 2 . (24) Toronto E l e c t r i c Commissioners v. Snider [ 1925] 2 D.L.R. 5(P.C.). - 11 -However, the concept of the bargaining unit does appear i n P.C. 1 0 0 3 v J , promulgated pursuant to the War ( 2 6 ) Measures Act , which created the War Labour Board. Af t e r World War I I , the provinces entered the f i e l d of labour r e l a t i o n s with l e g i s l a t i o n of t h e i r own. P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n was uniform i n i t s adoption of the p r i n c i p l e of majority rule and examination of these f i r s t statutes also shows the additi o n of the l e g a l (27) element of appropriateness . I t i s obvious that the statute draftsmen gave p a r t i c u l a r a t t e ntion to the United States' labour l e g i s l a t i o n . The f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n which (28) replaced P.C. I Q O 3 also adopted these concepts. The tracing of the h i s t o r y of the bargaining u n i t i n North American labour l e g i s l a t i o n i s important f o r two reasons. F i r s t , the adoption of the p r i n c i p l e of majority ru l e i s a recognition of the fundamental view of labour ( 2 5 ) 1 9 4 4 1 C.W.O.R. 4 3 9 -( 2 6 ) R.S.C. 1 9 2 7 c . 2 0 6 o ( 2 7 ) The Alberta Labour Act S.A. 1 9 4 7 c . 8 , s . 5 9 . Labour Relations Act S.B.C. 1 9 5 4 c . 1 7 , s . 1 0 . Manitoba Labour Relations Act S.M. 1 9 4 8 c . 2 7 , s . 7 . Labour Relations Aot S.N.B. 1 9 4 9 c . 2 0 , s . 7 . Labour Relations Act R.S.N. 1 9 5 2 c . 2 9 5 , s . 7 . Trade Union Act N.S. Laws 1 9 4 7 c . 3 , s . 7 . Labour Relations Act S.O. 1 9 4 8 c . 5 1 . s . 4 . I n d u s t r i a l Relations Act Stat.P.E.I. 1 9 6 2 c.18, s . 1 5 . Trade Union Act S.S. 1 9 4 4 (2nd Sess.) c . 6 9 , s . 6 . - 12 -r e l a t i o n s i n the North American context, namely that labour peace i s a r e s u l t of the achievement of the proper balance of the strengths of employers and employees. This balance can only be achieved when there i s an exclus-ive representative of the employees. Secondly, the h i s t o r y shows the introduction of the concept of appropriateness. I t i s within the confines of t h i s concept that labour t r i b u n a l s must assess the public i n t e r e s t i n the granting of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining r i g h t s . However, p r i o r to a consideration of the h i s t o r y of the concept of approp-riateness, i t i s necessary to understand the impact which such a determination makes upon the c o l l e c t i v e bargaining process. • B. Determination of the Appropriate Unit - Concerns of the Parties The replacement of the i n d i v i d u a l contract of employment with bargaining of a c o l l e c t i v e nature obvious-l y has s i g n i f i c a n t impact upon the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p . This e f f e c t i s heightened because the parameter of the c o l l e c t i v e group i s defined by l e g i s l a t i o n through the use of the device of the appropriate bargaining u n i t . - 13 -Within the confines of t h i s device the labour r e l a t i o n s t r i b u n a l must take into account the concerns of the employer, the trade union, the employees and the p u b l i c . This task has been compared to the creation of a sovereign state out of an unorganized group of people with competing i n t e r e s t s . N e i l Chamberlain theorized that "the bargain-ing u n i t i n the United States has assumed, because of i t s l e g a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , the same s i g n i f i c a n c e as the state (29) i n p o l i t i c a l theory." v 7 1 His reasoning deserves f u r t h e r elaboration: "Its occupant enjoys the r i g h t s of sovereignty over the defined area. These r i g h t s include tha power to make laws, c o l l e c t revenues, and exercise d i s c i p l i n a r y sanctions." ( 3 0 ) This analogy e f f e c t i v e l y shows the l a s t i n g nature which the determination of the appropriate unit may have. I t creates a constituency within which the leaders and constituents may change while the constituency i t s e l f r e t a i n s i t s d e f i n i t i o n . By focusing on the possible e f f e c t s on the i n t e r e s t s of the constituents, the f u l l impact of the determination can be seen. ( 2 9 ) supra, footnote 1 5 at p. 9. ( 3 0 ) i b i d . , p. 9 . - 14 -The concerns of the pa r t i e s generally r e l a t e to the si z e and the composition of the un i t . Many times, a preference i n regard to size w i l l be o f f s e t by a concern over composition. The part i e s w i l l have to re c o n c i l e these considerations p r i o r to making representations i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r preferences to the l e g i s l a t i v e t r i b u n a l empowered to determine the appropriate bargaining u n i t . The representations to the t r i b u n a l indicate each party's determination of the optimum configuration f o r him. The t r i b u n a l must then balance the p a r t i e s ' preferences with t h e i r l e g i s l a t i v e mandate and the public i n t e r e s t . For the employer, the determination of the size of the unit i s most c r u c i a l . He may favour small units because of the les s e r e f f e c t the withdrawal of t h e i r services may have and the opportunity they present to allow him to transfer work from a s t r i k i n g u n i t to one s t i l l bound by contract. This type of consideration i s of l e s s importance when union s o l i d a r i t y i s high. Generally, employers seem to favour l a r g e r u n i t s . A large unit i s more d i f f i c u l t to organize and d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s r e -gard may postpone the advent of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. Smaller units are easier to organize and also expose the employer to the chance of "whipsaw" s t r i k e s by units whose - 15 -bargaining cycles are d i f f e r e n t . A p r o l i f e r a t i o n of smaller units also means added expense i n administration f o r the employer as he has to deal with a number of bar-gaining cycles. The s i z e of the u n i t may also determine the nature of the issues to be addressed i n bargaining. Large units w i l l have the economic impact to require more bargaining i n the area of f r i n g e b e n e f i t s . Smaller units may lead to more labour s t r i f e as r i v a l r i e s among units can lead to increasing economic demands. The concerns of the trade union about si z e and composition i n many ways r e f l e c t a mirror-image of the concerns of the employer. I f a unit i s too large i t may include anti-union f a c t i o n s of s i g n i f i c a n t number that the trade union may never have the required majority. A large unit may contain groups of many divergent i n t e r e s t s and an attempt to s a t i s f y a l l concerns may make bargaining (31) l e s s e f f e c t i v e . - ^ This type of i n t e r n a l pressure can only make negotiation l e s s sincere, e s p e c i a l l y i f the employer i s aware of the divergent i n t e r e s t s . However, too small a unit diminishes the power of the trade union ( 3 1 ) Continuing his p o l i t i c a l analogy, Chamberlain, supra, footnote 16 at p. 9 states: "Sovereignty i s l i m i t e d by the powers of dissent of the governed." - 16 -to compel the employer to bargain i n areas other than economic issues. Smaller units leave a trade union more open to r a i d s by other trade unions as there i s l e s s d i f f i c u l t y i n organizing a small u n i t . F i n a l l y , i f a unit i s large enough to contain groups of v a r i e d i n t e r -ests then a great deal of energy may have to be channeled into the solving of work assignment disputes among compet-ing c r a f t s . This i s also a concern with small units as t h i s form w i l l r e s u l t i n more trade union j u r i s d i c t i o n a l disputes. The concerns of the i n d i v i d u a l employee do not seem to be predicated upon the size and composition of the u n i t . Granted he has an i n t e r e s t i n the bargaining strength of the unit but t h i s concern i s best expressed through his bargaining agent. The i n d i v i d u a l employee has much to lose i n the determination of the appropriate unit by operation of the notion of the trade union as the exclusive bargaining agent of those included i n the u n i t . I f an employee i s i n the designated unit he loses the r i g h t to bargain on his own behalf, whether or not he ( 32) has assented to such r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . ^ He i s l e g i s l a t -( 3 2 ) Le Syndicat Cathfrlique des Employees de Magasins de  Quebec Inc. v. La Compagnie Faqu'et Lt^e H ' J W ) 18 D.L.R. (2d) 346 (S.C.C.). - 17 -i v e l y precluded from adopting another method of bargaining. This concern dominated debate when the present scheme of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining was adopted. Conversely, i f an employee i s not included i n the appropriate unit, he may be l e f t to bargain i n d i v i d u a l l y i n an obviously i n f e r i o r p o s i t i o n . The i n d i v i d u a l employee may also be concerned about the e f f e c t the determination has upon the q u a l i t y of his representation. In a small unit the concerns of the i n d i v i d u a l or small groups are more apt to be taken into account because of the increased opportunity f o r input into the process. In a large unit the input of the the i n d i v i d u a l i s considerably l e s s . The determination of the appropriate unit must also r e f l e c t the concerns of the p u b l i c . The public has an i n t e r e s t i n labour peace with fewer major disruptions and r e s u l t i n g inconveniences. A large unit may y i e l d a concern that trade unions are equivalent to monopolies i n respect to t h e i r c ontrol i n c e r t a i n i n d u s t r i e s . A large unit with i t s attendant power may bring about i n f l a t i o n a r y pressures. Too small a unit may not r e f l e c t the public i n t e r e s t i n the encouragement of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. These concerns w i l l vary with a consideration - 18 -of the p r e v a i l i n g economic s i t u a t i o n . When there i s i n f l a t i o n a r y pressure these concerns are magnified. When the economy i s stable the public presumes i t i s being well served by i t s labour l e g i s l a t i o n . The concept of appropriateness can be used to r e f l e c t current public concerns and gives labour r e l a t i o n s t r i b u n a l s the scope to do so. I t has been said that "although the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the (tr i b u n a l ) to adjudicate u n f a i r labour p r a c t i s e cases i s perhaps the most dramatic, i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n to make unit determinations i s at the heart of our system of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining and has a most pervasive impact upon i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s " . J J This can be supported by a consideration, not only of the number of persons a f f e c t -ed by the determination, but by a consideration of the concerns manifested by the p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d . The determination of the appropriate unit i s a threshold decision, deciding whether the benefit of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining w i l l be bestowed. I t may also have reper-cussions i n the negotiation stages of the process. The recognition of the importance of t h i s determination ( 3 3 ) Gorman, Labor Law: Unionization and C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining ( 1 9 7 6 ) p. 6 7 . - 19 -requires that there "be an underlying r a t i o n a l e upon which determinations are predicated. To date there i s considerable d i f f i c u l t y i n pinpointing one underlying support. C. The Philosophies of Unit Determination Since the passage of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining l e g i s l a t i o n there has been considerable growth i n the ( 34) numbers of organized w o r k e r s . w The determination of the appropriate unit has a considerable e f f e c t on the organizational desires of unorganized workers since i t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s the size and character of any u n i t . Therefore, as the numbers of organized workers as a percentage of the t o t a l work force increases, there should be an emergent general p o l i c y with regard to unit determ-i n a t i o n . The formulation of guidelines would give advanced notice to the unorganized of the c r i t e r i a which labour ( 3 4 ) For example; In Canada, organized workers as a per-centage of the t o t a l c i v i l i a n labour force rose from 1 2 . 7 % i n 1 9 4 2 to 2 9 . 4 $ i n 1 9 7 3 • In B r i t i s h Columbia, organized workers as a percentage of t o t a l paid workers rose from 28.8% i n 1 9 ^ 2 to 4 4 . 9 % i n 1 9 7 6 . See Canada, Dept. of Labour, "Union Growth" ( 1 9 7 0 ) . - 20 -t r i b u n a l s favour i n t h e i r assessment. C o l l e c t i v e bargaining l e g i s l a t i o n gives l i t t l e guidance as to which facto r s or concerns should predominate. w^ The lack of l e g i s l a t i v e guidelines leads to a s i t u a t i o n where labour t r i b u n a l s deal with the concept of appropriateness on a case by case assessment of the p a r t i e s ' concerns and the public i n t e r e s t . This enhances the need f o r under-standing of the various pressures upon t r i b u n a l s i n t h i s determination and an analysis of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l con-f l i c t which underlies i t . The p h i l o s o p h i c a l approaches to unit determin-ation seem to devolve i n t o two basic underlying concerns. The f i r s t approach stresses the maximization of the s e l f -determination of the i n d i v i d u a l workers; the maximization of freedom of choice. In opposition to t h i s approach are those who advocate a unit determination p o l i c y which stresses the maximization of s t a b i l i t y i n c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i n the i n t e r e s t s of the national economy and the public's i n t e r e s t i n i n d u s t r i a l harmony .i The determin-a t i o n of the appropriate unit must take these philosophies ( 3 5 ) An instance of statutory guidance to be found i s i n : The Prince Edward Island Labour Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1 9 7 4 , c.L - 1 , s . 5 3 ( 4 ) which gives a discr e t i o n a r y power to determine appropriateness by reference to a geographic area as opposed to p a r t i c u l a r s i t e s . - 21 -into account i n deciding which unit d e f i n i t i o n best serves the purposes of the society w r i t i n g the laws. Unit determination i s g r e a t l y influenced by the object-ives p r e v a i l i n g at the time of a p p l i c a t i o n . To understand the input which these philosophies can have into the pro-cess of unit determination we must look at them more c a r e f u l l y . I t has been said that Canadian labour l e g i s l a t -ion i m p l i c i t l y encourages the practice of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. J This encouragement a r i s e s from the l e g i s l a t i v e d i r e c t i o n that a l l employees have the r i g h t to belong to a trade union and p a r t i c i p a t e i n i t s lawful a c t i v i t i e s . ( 3 7 ) M a n i t o b a ^ a n d O n t a r i o ^ ^ give e x p l i c i t ( 3 6 ) Herman, The Size and Composition of Bargaining Units ( 1 9 6 8 ) Task Force on Labour Relations, Pro-ject No.26, Draft Study. ( 3 7 ) Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1 9 7 0 c.L - 1 , s . 1 1 0 ( 1 ) . Alberta Labour Act S.A. 1 9 7 3 c . 3 3 » s . 6 6 ( l ) . Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia S.B.C. 1 9 7 3 ( 2 n d Sess.) c . 1 2 2 , s . 2 ( l ) . Labour Relations Act R.S.M. 1 9 7 0 c.LlO, s.5-I n d u s t r i a l Relations Act R.S.N.B. 1 9 7 3 c . I - 4 , s . 2 ( l ) . Labour Relations Act R.S.N. 1 9 7 0 c . 1 9 1 . s .3(l)« Trade Union Act S.N.S. 1 9 7 2 c . 1 9 , S . 1 2 ( 1 ) . Labour Relations Act R.S.O. 1 9 7 0 c . 2 3 2 , s . 3 . Labour Act R.S.P.E.I. 1 9 7 4 c.L - 1 , s . 8 ( l ) . Trade Union Act S.S. 1 9 7 2 c . 1 3 7 , s . 3 -Labour Code R.S.Q. 1 9 6 4 c . l 4 l , s . 3 . ( 3 8 ) S.M. 1 9 7 2 c . L - 1 0 . ( 3 9 ) R.S.O. 1 9 7 0 c . 2 3 2 . - 22 -encouragement to c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i n the preambles to t h e i r respective l e g i s l a t i o n s . These preambles state that i t i s the public i n t e r e s t to encourage c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. In B r i t i s h Columbia t h i s encouragement i s (LO) expressed i n the body of the statute. However, t h i s encouragement of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining does not provide guidance on the philosophy underlying the component of unit determination i n the c o l l e c t i v e bargaining process. R i g i d adherence to ei t h e r philosophy could lead to very disastrous r e s u l t s . For example, promotion of freedom of choice and self-determination without s t a b i l i t y considerations i n i t s most extreme could lead to each worker choosing his own representative. Promotion of s t a b i l i t y without recognition of the employee's r i g h t to determine his own representative could lead to a t r i b u n a l determining a unit so broad as to be impossible to organize. I t i s obvious that weight must be given to each philosophy i n any determination. The proponents of unlimited freedom of choice i n the s e l e c t i o n of a bargaining representative occupy almost the same p o s i t i o n as the freedom of contract ( 4 0 ) S.B.C. 1 9 7 3 ( 2 n d Sess) c . 1 2 2 , s . 2 7 -- 23 -advocates did i n the f i g h t to r e j e c t the p r i n c i p l e of majority r u l e i n labour r e l a t i o n s . That i s to say they use phrases such as "freedom of choice" and " s e l f -determination" which conjure up the spectre of t o t a l i t a r -ianism should these basic r i g h t s be abridged. However, t h i s does not mean that the p o s i t i o n which they advance i s untenable merely because i t makes i t s appeal to emotive i n s t i n c t s . There are very few who would advocate unlimited r i g h t s of self-determination, simply because such an unrestrained r i g h t could only lead to abstention from (4l) trade unionism by those who wished to do so. The more restrained form of t h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l approach i s to urge that where a majority of workers i n a definable c l a s s with a recognizable commuhity of i n t e r e s t s , wish to bargain c o l l e c t i v e l y , then the t r i b u n a l should c e r t i f y a bargaining agent f o r those workers. The c r i t i c s of t h i s approach point out that should t h i s approach be adopted then the sole determining f a c t o r which the labour t r i b u n a l could use as a guide would be the extent of the union's o r g a n i z a t i o n . ^ 2 ^ This i s (41) see; Abodeely, The N.L.R.B. and the Appropriate Bargaining Unit (1971), pp. 5-9. (42) Rains, The Determination of the Appropriate Bargain-ing Unit By the N.L.R.B.: A Lack of O b j e c t i v i t y Perceived (1967) 8 B.C. Ind. & Com. L.R. 175-- 24 -p e r c e i v e d as p l a c i n g too^much importance upon the r i g h t s of the trade union as opposed t o the r i g h t s of the i n d i v -i d u a l members of the union . The purpose of l a b o u r l e g i -s l a t i o n was to e s t a b l i s h a balance between the power of the employer and trade union power f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l worker. The p r o t e c t i o n of the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l worker does not always c o i n c i d e w i t h the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s of the trade union. To a l l o w the e x t e n t of o r g a n i z a t i o n t o be a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r i n u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n i g n o r e s the c o r o l l a r y to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o o r g a n i z e ; the r i g h t of oth e r i n d i v i d u a l s to r e j e c t c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . ^ To a l l o w a u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n so as to encompass on l y t h i s f a c t o r would mean t h a t a l l a t r a d e union need do i s to org a n i z e a s m a l l group then submit t h a t any l a r g e r group would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e because they would not vote f o r the a p p l i c a n t union and thereby those who were o r g a n i z e d would be denied the r i g h t to b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y . Another c r i t i c i s m of t h i s p h i l o s o p h y stems from the assumption t h a t a l a r g e number of u n i t s l e a d s to l a b o u r u n r e s t . To a l l o w f u l l freedom of c h o i c e would ( 4 3 ) i b i d . . p. 1 7 6 . - 25 -obviously increase the number of u n i t s . Labour unrest would manifest i t s e l f i n the forms of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l disputes between trade unions and the increased use of "whipsaw" t a c t i c s during bargaining. I t has never been d e f i n i t i v e l y shown that an increased number of units as a r e s u l t of c e r t i f i c a t i o n y i e l d s l e s s s t a b i l i t y . However, i t has been shown that there was a lessening of s t a b i l i t y when there was a p o l i c y favouring c r a f t unit severance i n (Lh.) the United States. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study showed a l o s s of s t a b i l i t y although not as great a l o s s as opponents of relaxed severance p o l i c i e s had predicted. The advocates of s t a b i l i t y as the c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r i n unit determination proceed on the assumption that there i s increased s t a b i l i t y when the area of units i s greater, thereby decreasing the number of u n i t s . This (44) Jones, Self-Determination vs. S t a b i l i t y of Labor Relations, ( 1 9 5 9 - 6 0 ) 5 8 Mich. L.R. 3 1 3 . This study traces c r a f t severance p o l i c y from the early d i s -putes between the AF of L and the CIO through various phases responsive to changes i n p o l i t i c a l administrations. The study i s empirical i n nature and concerns the e f f e c t of the c r a f t sev-erance p o l i c y prevalent at the time of the study. I t does not seem too great a leap i n l o g i c to postulate that an increase i n units, whether brought about by c r a f t severance or not, could y i e l d / r e s u l t s comparable to t h i s study. - 26 -assumption i s g r e a t l y favoured by employers. J I t should be pointed out that labour t r i b u n a l s have never directed themselves to determining the most appropriate u n i t . Their determinations consider only whether a p a r t i c u l a r u n i t i s an appropriate one. Some c r i t i c s f e e l that t r i b u n a l s have misdirected themselves i n t h i s r e g a r d . { k 6 ) Those who adopt s t a b i l i t y as the guiding f a c t o r i n unit determination f e e l that p r a c t i c a l necessity should compell the t r i b u n a l to consider the form that future bargaining w i l l take. A l l units should be capable of carrying on a v i a b l e and meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r employer. The p r o l i f e r a t i o n of bargaining units would r e s u l t i n increased labour s t r i f e because the employer's bargaining w i l l be l e s s e f f i c i e n t . To carry t h i s philosophy to i t s extreme form would c a l l f o r units of so broad an area that i n the majority of cases c o l l e c t -ive bargaining would be e f f e c t i v e l y denied. These broad philosophies are subject to market pressures. "In a dynamic economy confronted with an ever increasing rate of technological change and innovation, ( 4 5 ) ibid., see table of results at p. 3 2 5 ' (46) supra, footnote 42 at p. 177. - 27 -jobs w i l l change, companies w i l l change, new products and techniques w i l l be developed; As a r e s u l t , bargain-ing units need to adapt. These pressures compliment the basic philosophies and make them responsive to the time frame i n which any p a r t i c u l a r unit determination i s being made. I t i s generally conceded that the pressure emanating from the labour market i s to expand the area of bargaining u n i t s . Chamberlain f e e l s that i n the optimum form the bargaining unit would expand u n t i l i t was coextensive with product markets. This would have the e f f e c t of taking wages out of competition by insuring the uniformity of wage rates among producers (49) who operate i n the same market. 7 1 This would r e s u l t i n i n e f f i c i e n t producers being driven from the market as they could no longer compete simply on the basis of lower wage rates. Changes i n technology also operate to expand the size of the bargaining u n i t . A technological change which r e s u l t s i n a reduction of the number of employees w i l l generate pressure to expand. Those employees l e f t (47) Herman, supra, footnote 37, at p. 51. (48) Marshall & Marshall p. 75. (49) supra, footnote 1 6 at p. 9. - 28 -w i l l wish to broaden t h e i r ranks to include more employees so that there i s no net lo s s i n bargaining strength. Technology r e s u l t i n g i n new products w i l l generate expan-sionary pressure from e x i s t i n g units who wish to increase t h e i r bargaining strength. Advances i n the areas of transportation and communication have also generated pressure to expand. Improved highways and new communities have res u l t e d i n many employers, e s p e c i a l l y i n the construction industry, expanding the area of t h e i r operations. Improved trans-portation also allows an increase i n the product market area. There are also pressures which operate to reduce the siz e of the un i t . Perhaps the greatest of these pressures i s that exerted by c r a f t groups who wish to have units defined by the s k i l l s of the employees. I t should be noted that many l e g i s l a t u r e s i n t h i s country have made provision f o r unit determination along these l i n e s . ( ^ 0 ) r p n e j_ mp etus to preservation of units along ( 5 0 ) Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia S.B.C. 1 9 7 3 ( 2 n d Sess) c . 1 2 2 , s . 4 l . Labour Relations Act R.S.M. 1 9 7 0 c.LlO, s . l ( y ) . I n d u s t r i a l Relations Act R.S.N.B. 1 9 7 3 c . I - 4 , s . l ( l ) . Labour Relations Act S.N.S.. 1 9 7 2 c . 1 9 , s . 2 3 ( l ) . Labour Relations Act R.S.O. 1 9 7 2 c . 2 3 2 , s . 6 ( 2 ) . - 29 -c r a f t l i n e s i s not merely to protect i d e n t i t y but i s also a recognition that a unit c o n s i s t i n g of workers who exer-cis e key s k i l l s wields a power often disproportionate to i t s s i z e . However, the tendency i s away from s p e c i a l statutory protection f o r c r a f t interests.^"'"' 1 In Canada, the size of bargaining units i s further c u r t a i l e d i n that p r o v i n c i a l t r i b u n a l s may not determine units which are not geographically contained by p r o v i n c i a l boundaries. The Canada Labour Relations Boards can determine i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l units i n areas of f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l competence. The labour r e l a t i o n s t r i b u n a l s have to take into account these pressures and the thrusts of under-l y i n g philosophy. These, coupled with the concerns of the p a r t i e s as alluded to i n t h e i r presentations to the t r i b u n a l , are f a c t o r s to be taken into account i n the determination of the appropriate bargaining u n i t . i ( 5 1 ) Woods, The Task Force Report on Canadian I n d u s t r i a l Relations ( 1 9 6 8 ) p. 141. - 30 -Chapter Two - The Determination of'the Appropriate Unit P r i o r to the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour Code A. Factors Considered i n Previous Determinations The determination of the unit appropriate f o r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i s one of the threshold decisions which combine i n the process of c e r t i f i c a t i o n to y i e l d a bargaining representative. The number of trade unions has r i s e n enormously since the advent of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining l e g i s l a t i o n ^ ^ yet the source material concerning the concept of appropriateness i s l i m i t e d . Boards were under no o b l i g a t i o n to give reasons f o r t h e i r decisions although they were often required to report the (2) r e s u l t s of t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s . '• This, coupled with a desire to avoid court intervention through the use of perogative writs, l e d to the l i m i t e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of case law capable of giv i n g i n s i g h t i n t o p o l i c y regarding appropriateness. Perhaps these fears of j u d i c i a l review were gre a t l y exaggerated. The Courts have always showed ( 1 ) From 1 9 4 4 to 1 9 6 7 the number of l o c a l s increased more r a p i d l y than the average size of l o c a l s , the former more than doubling while the l a t t e r increased by about one-quarter. see Canada, Dept. of Labour, "Union Growth" ( 1 9 7 0 ) . ( 2 ) For example; The Labour Relations Act S.B.C . , 1 9 5 4 C . 1 7 , s.6 2 ( 1 1 ) The Board s h a l l publish a l l decisions made under t h i s Act. - 31 -considerable r e s t r a i n t i n exercising the power of j u d i c i a l review over decisions regarding appropriateness. They have taken the p o s i t i o n that since the l e g i s l a t u r e has s p e c i f i c a l l y given labour r e l a t i o n s boards the power to determine whether a uni t i s appropriate and have not provided the boards with any guidance i n t h i s determination, then provided that the board exercises t h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n good f a i t h i t s decision ( 3) i s not subject to j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . w I t has followed (3) see, Labour Relations Board f o r B.C., the Attorney-General f o r B.C. and R e t a i l , Wholesale and Dept. Store Union, Local No.580 v. Canada Safeway Limited (1953) , 53 C.L.L.C. 15 ,058; The Queen (Ex parte Muni- c i p a l Spraying & Contracting Ltd.) v. Labour Relations  Board (Nova Scotia) et a l . , f !955l 2 D.L.R. 681 (N.S.S.C.); Re Amalgamated Association of Street, E l e c t r i c Railway  and Motor Coach Employees of America D i v i s i o n 101 (1956), 2 D.L.R.(2d) 676 (B.C.S.C.); Banks et a l 7 v. Canada Labour Relations Board and Canadian Brother-hood of Railway, Transport and General Workers and  Dominion Canals Employees' Association and St. Law-rence Seaway Authority (1959), 59 C.L.L.C. 15,454; Montreal Newspaper Guild, Local 111 v. L.R.B. (Que.)  and Gazette P r i n t i n g Company Limited, [1965J B.R. 753 (Que.Q.B.); La Commission des Relations Ouvrieres de  l a Province de Quebec v. Burlington M i l l s Hosiery Co. of Canada Ltd. and United T e x t i l e Workers of America, Local 311, C1964] S.C.R. 342; Noranda Mines Limited v. United Steelworkers of America, C.L.C.. and Kenneth -A. Smith and The Labour Relations Board of the Prov-ince of Saskatchewan, [1969] S.C.R. 898; Cunningham  Drug Stores Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board and  Attorney-General f o r the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia  and the R e t a i l Clerks Union Local 1518, l±9?3] S.C.R. 256; Re Canada Labour Relations Board and Transair Ltd. e t ~ a l . (1976), 67 D.L.R. (3d) 421 (S.C.C.). - 32 -from t h i s that since the board has exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n to order what constitutes an appropriate unit i t also has exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n to amend such an order. A f i n a l reason why there are so few decisions on t h i s question r e s u l t s from the f a c t that boards made many of t h e i r decisions according to the custom prevalent i n the industry concerned. I f an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i -cation was i n keeping with the pattern i n the industry then the board would c e r t i f y and not report i n the form of a decision.Thus, many of the reported references to appropriateness a r i s e upon the consideration of some other facet of the c e r t i f i c a t i o n procedure. For example, i n C i t y Cab Co. L t d . ^ the Alberta Board of I n d u s t r i a l Relations was confronted with the question of whether the d r i v e r owners of taxicabs were independent contractors or employees. This case i s reported on the issue of appropriateness and r i g h t l y so f o r the determination of the taxicab owners' status i s a c r u c i a l determination i n (4) Building Service Employees' Local Union No. 333 (Saskatoon) v. L~.R.B. Saskatchewan, and Nipawin Union Hospital Board et a l . (1970), 70 C.L.L.C. 14,002. (Sask. C.A.). ( 5) Truckers, Cartagemen, Construction and Building  Material Employees, Local 362 Calgary v. C i t y Cab Co. Led. 67 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 0 0 5 . - 33 -the process of c e r t i f i c a t i o n of a u n i t . However, a f t e r a r e c i t a t i o n of the f a c t s and a consideration of the law extant upon the question of employee status, the issue of appropriateness i s dealt with "by saying: "The Board of I n d u s t r i a l Relations therefore having completed i t s inquiry i s s a t i s f i e d that applicant i s a proper "bargaining agent, that the unit i n quest-ion i s an appropriate unit f o r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining, and that a majority of the employees i n the unit have selected the applicant to be a bargaining agent on behalf of the employees i n the u n i t . " (6) This pattern i s repeated throughout the reported cases. I t gives l i t t l e i n s i g h t into what fact o r s the board considered relevant i n determining appropriateness. The number of reported cases on the relevant determ-inants of appropriateness dwindles even f u r t h e r when cases of t h i s nature are discarded* Previous examinations of the f a c t o r s con-sidered by Canadian boards on a question of approp-riateness are catalogued by various writers. Professor Carrothers provides a l i s t of 15 f a c t o r s which boards (6) i b i d . , at p. 964. - 34 -have considered. Professor Herman has taken a broader approach and has broken the previous decisions down into (8) 7 categories. However, t h i s writer prefers the even broader scope offered by the categories suggested i n (9) Professor Herman's Draft study f o r the Wood's R e p o r t . w (7) see»Carrothers, C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining Law i n Canada I965 pp. 234-235. The f a c t o r s based on published decisions are: (a) avoidance of confusion and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , (b) common duties, s k i l l s , wages and working conditions, (c) whether persons alleged to be supervisors use "tools of the trade", (d) sub-s t a n t i a l community of i n t e r e s t , by v i r t u e of terms i n employment, i n c o l l e c t i v e bargaining f o r wages and hours, (e) equal treatment f o r employees with s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g , ( f ) maintenance of the status quo, (g) v i a b i l i t y of the unit, (h) p r i o r i t y of a p p l i c -ation of competing unions, ( i ) t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y from one working unit to another, ( j ) custom and p r a c t i c e , or h i s t o r y of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining, or pattern of -bargaining i n the area, (k) avoidance of the "contract bar", (1) wishes of the union, (m) permanence of the unit, (n) h i s t o r y of the union's pattern of a p p l i c a -tions f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n , (o) the fundamental coherence of the unit and (p) opposition or absence of opposit-ion by the employer or an incumbent union. (8) see, Herman, Determination of the Appropriate Bargain-ing Unit (1966) pp. 12-13. The considerations* are: (1) the purpose and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of l e g i s l a t i o n (2) the community of i n t e r e s t of the employees to be included i n the bargaining unit (3) "the h i s t o r y and pattern of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i n the industry, i n the firm, or i n the bargaining unit i n question (4) the desires of the employees, unions and manage-ment (5) agreement among the parties (6) any employer or organizations (7) any p r i o r decisions, on p o l i c i e s or p r i n c i p l e s of the board that could be applied to the s i t u a t i o n . (9) Herman, The Size and Composition of Bargaining Units ( 1 9 6 8 ) . - 35 -By grouping the various c r i t e r i a , Professor Herman has made three general cateories which r e f l e c t the p o l i c y on appropriateness. The three general categories are: "I (Those fac t o r s ) concerned with the i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements of the part-ies involved, such as membership r u l e s of the union, the nature of the employ-er's administrative structure, and the h i s t o r y of union organization. II (Those f a c t o r s ) focussing upon the nat-ure of the work involved and would include such tests as community of i n t e r e s t of workers; interchangeabil-i t y of employees; and common wage and employment p r a c t i s e s . I l l (Those f a c t o r s ) p r i m a r i l y involved i n preserving freedom of choice to the p a r t i c i p a n t s and which include wishes of the employees; these c r i t e r i a f u r ther take into account the bargain-ing h i s t o r y of the union(s) and ( 1 0 ) employer(s) concerned with the d e c i s i o n . " The present discussion w i l l adopt these three general categories and add an a d d i t i o n a l category r e l a t i n g to p o l i c y considerations i m p l i c i t i n the l e g i s l a t i o n . P r i o r to proceeding to a discussion of the case law under these categories i t should be pointed out that i n a very broad sense the concept of "community of i n t e r e s t " i s present i n each of these categories. Since the whole process of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i s directed towards allowing employees with s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s to ( 1 0 ) i b i d . , at p. 6 l . - 36 -bargain together about those i n t e r e s t s , some writers f e e l that a l l factors considered i n the determination of appropriateness are aimed at f i n d i n g a "community of i n t e r e s t " . ^ This f a c t o r w i l l l a t e r be seen to be an i n t e g r a l component of the p o l i c y enunciated by the B r i t -i s h Columbia Labour Relations Board. Also, there are statutory l i m i t s on a board's d i s c r e t i o n re appropriateness. These w i l l be discussed ( 1 2 ) i n the B r i t i s h Columbia context. B. The Factors I - I n s t i t u t i o n a l Arrangements The most important i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement f a c t o r i s the t r a d i t i o n a l method of organization i n a p a r t i c u l a r industry. Reliance on t h i s f a c t o r i s espec-i a l l y prevalent i n the construction industry where bar-gaining i n the nature of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining existed p r i o r to the advent of modern l e g i s l a t i o n . Organization i n the construction industry was t r a d i t i o n a l l y on c r a f t ( 1 1 ) see, Gorman, Labor Law ( 1 9 7 6 ) p. 6 9 . ( 1 2 ) see, Sack and Levinson, Ontario Labour Relations Board Practise ( 1 9 7 3 ) , at p. 5 9 f o r a discussion of the statutory l i m i t a t i o n s i n the Ontario context. - 37 -lines and the framers of collective bargaining legislation chose to allow craft units to continue to be appropriate units. Rather than interrupt already established orderly bargaining patterns, boards have preserved the pre-existing institutional arrangements in this industry. In Kent Tile and Marble Co. Ltd.^ 1-^, the rationale for this preservation was that, because of the construction industry's predilection for jurisdictional disputes, any interruption of the established pattern would generate unwarranted unrest. While the traditional method of organization i s not a factor peculiar to the construction industry, i t i s only rarely alluded to in other contexts.^ Another institutional arrangement factor which boards take into consideration i s the nature of the employer's operation. If an employer operates out of more than one location a unit may be found to be inapprop-riate i f i t f a i l s to include a l l the employees of that ( 1 3 ) United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of  of America and Kent Tile and Marble Co. Ltd. and  Tile Setters, Marble Masons, Terrazzo Workers and  Composition Tile Layers Union No. 16 (1961") 61 C.L.L.C. 16,204 at p. 941. (14) see. Hod Carriers, Building and Common Labourer's  Union, Local No. 92 and Mannix Co. Ltd. ( 1 9 6 2 ) 62 C.L.L.C. 16 , 2 2 2 ; Office Employees~International  Union and Bell Telephone Company of Canada ( 1 9 6 3 ) 6 3 C.L.L.C. 16 , 2 9 7 . - 38 -employer having a community of i n t e r e s t wherever located. This has been the r a t i o n a l e f o r r e j e c t i n g single l o c a t i o n units i n the banking i n d u s t r y , t h e transportation i n d u s t r y a n d the communications i n d u s t r y / 1 " ^ This does not mean that i n the case of national i n d u s t r i e s there i s a r e s t r i c t i o n to industry wide u n i t s , nor i s i t a r e s t r i c t i o n f o r a l l employee units where an employer has more than one l o c a t i o n . The counter balancing f a c t o r seems to be the extent of the f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n of the employees. This can be determined by considering the extent of interchange of employees, c e n t r a l i z a t i o n (15) Kitimat, Terrace and D i s t r i c t General Workers'  Union, Local No. 1583t C.L.C. and Bank of Nova  Scotia, Kitimat ( 1 9 5 9 ) 59 C.L.L.C. 18 , 1 5 2 . ( 1 6) Western-Canadian Greyhound Lines Limited and West- ern Canadian Greyhound Employees' Union, D,L.S. 7-563; Transport Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers' Union and Carwil Transport Limited (1952) 52 C.L.L.C. 16,617; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115 and H.M. Trimble and Sons L t d . (1971) 71 C.L.L.C. 16,042. R e t a i l Clerks Union, Local 401  and Soo-Security Motorways Ltd. (1974) 74 C.L.L.C. 1.6,019. ~ (17) Syndicat General du Cinema et de l a T e l e v i s i o n and  Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 ) 66 C.L.L.C. 16,081. - 39 -of administration and the s i m i l a r i t y of the employees' bargaining i n t e r e s t s . I t should also be remembered that boards are not mandated to f i n d the most appropriate unit, (18) only an appropriate u n i t . These counter-balances can be seen i n cases l i k e O f f i c e Employees International Union and B e l l Tele-(19) phone Company of Canada v 7 where the employer was a nationwide operation. The union sought c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r a unit of sales personnel i n the Eastern region. The employer alleged the unit was inappropriate and pointed out that a l l other c e r t i f i c a t i o n s of i t s employees were oh a system wide basis. The board c e r t i f i e d because the employees i n the proposed unit did not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the nationwide operation but comprised a d i s t i n c t group whose operations were c a r r i e d on completely i n the Eastern region. In Bank of Nova Scotia, K i t i m a t ^ 0 ^ were i t not f o r a firm t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y p o l i c y , there may have been enough f u n c t i o n a l independence to allow the u n i t . The board c e r t a i n l y l e f t the matter open s t a t i n g : " I t may (18) Department Store Organizing Committee, Local 1004-C.C.L. and Simpson Sears Limited ( 1 9 5 6 ) 56 C.L.L.C. 18 , 0 2 8 ; Communications Workers of America v. North-ern E l e c t r i c Company Limited, Northern E l e c t r i c  Employees' Association and United Steelworkers of  America O.L.R.B. Rep. March 1 9 6 9.P. 1 2 6 3 . ( 1 9 ) ( 1 9 6 3 ) 6 3 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 2 9 7 . ( 2 0 ) supra, note 1 5 • - 40 -well be that units of some of ,the employees of a Bank, grouped together t e r r i t o r i a l l y , or on some other basis w i l l prove to be appropriate, rather than a nationwide ( 2 1 ) unit." v Therefore i t seems that when speaking of the nature of the employer as an institutional arrangement factor, the crux of the matter i s whether the nature of the employer is such that isolated groups of i t s employees do not have a sufficiently strong community of interest to sever them from the community of interest held by a l l n ( 2 2 ) the employees. One f i n a l matter must be referred to in consider-ing institutional arrangement. In Metropolitan Life Insur-ance Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 7 9 6 et a l . ^ 2 - ^ , the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Ontario Labour Relations Board policy of not investigating whether unit members met the membership ( 2 1 ) ibid., at p. 1 7 9 9 -( 2 2 ) see. The Hotel and Club Employees' Union Local 2 9 9  Hotet and Restaurant Employees' and Bartenders' International Union and Commonwealth Holiday Inns  of Canada Ltd. and a Group of Employees ( 1 9 7 0 ) 7 0 C.L.L.C. 16 , 0 2 6 ; Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-men and Helpers Local Union 9 1 et a l . v. Domtar Ltd., Trucking Division; United papermakers; International  Brotherhood of Pulp, etc. Workers ( 1 9 7 0 ) 7 0 C.L.L.C. 16 , 0 2 2 . ( 2 3 ) ( 1 9 7 0 ) 11 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 3 3 6 (S.C.C.). - 41 -requirements of an applicant trade union's consitution led i t to make decisions in excess of i t s jurisdiction. Failure to investigate this matter meant that the Board had not conclusively determined whether the employee in question was a member of the trade union at the relevant date and therefore, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant c e r t i f i c a t i o n . This decision, although i t was in L ( 2 5 ) accord with previous judicial pronouncements, -^ed to legislative codification of previous board practise II - Nature of Work Since collective bargaining involves the settle-ment of terms and conditions of employment by the use of a collective agreement, i t may be t r i t e to observe that the process should only be available to groups of employ-ees with similar conditions of employment. This has been phrased as the requirement that employees have "substantial (24) see, Regina v. Alberta Board of Industrial Relations  et a l . ex parte Stedelbauer Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd. (1968) 68 C.L.L.C. 14 , 135 (S.C.C.). ( 2 5 ) for example, The Labour Relations Act R.S.O. 1 9 7 0 , c . 2 3 2 s . 9 2(4) which reads? s . 9 2(4) Where the Board i s satisfied that a trade union has an established pract-ise of admitting persons to membership without regard to the e l i g i b i l i t y requirements of i t s charter, constitu-tion or by-laws, the Board, in determin-ing whether a person i s a member of a trade union, need not "have regard for such e l i g i b i l i t y requirements. - 42 -community of i n t e r e s t , by v i r t u e of terms of employment, (?6) i n c o l l e c t i v e bargaining f o r wages and hours'. . The requirement i s one of s u b s t a n t i a l , not i d e n t i c a l , community of i n t e r e s t . In United Steelworkers of (27) America v. Usarco Limited and a Group of Employees ' s i x c r i t e r i a were recognized as determinants of commun-i t y of i n t e r e s t . These were: 1 ) nature of the work performed 2 ) conditions of employment 3 ) s k i l l s of employees 4) administration 5 ) geographic circumstances ( 2 8 ) 6 ) f u n c t i o n a l coherence and interdependence. Some of the f a c t o r s which may d i s t i n g u i s h employees, who otherwise have a community of i n t e r e s t , from t h e i r fellow employees are differences i n : the (29) (30) tenure ot employment; work l o c a t i o n ; J working ( 2 6 ) O i l , Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna t i o n a l Union, Local No. 1 6 , 6 2 9 and Pembina Mountain Clays Limited ' ( 1 9 5 5 ) 5 5 C.L.L.C. 1 8 , 0 2 2 . ( 2 7 ) O.L.R.B. Rep. September 1 9 6 7 , p. 5 2 6 at p. 5 2 9 -(28) These were repeated i n : Union of Nursing Assistants v. Essex Health Association and Building Services  Employees International Union, Local Union No.210 O.L.R.B. Rep. November 1967, p. ?16 at p. 7 1 0 . ( 2 9 ) Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and Gen-e r a l Workers and Canadian National Railway Co. ( 1 9 7 0 ) 7 0 C.L.L.C. 16 , 0 1 9 . ( 3 0 ) International Association of Bridge, S t r u c t u r a l and  Ornamental Iron Workers, Loc a l 7 2 5 and Black, Swalls  and Bryson Ltd. ( 1 9 6 l ) 6 1 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 2 1 0 . - 43 -(31) ( 32) conditions J and methods of r e m u n e r a t i o n . w The importance of common working conditions can ( 33) he seen i n cases l i k e Goodyear Service Stores where the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n concerned a unit composed of employees of eight of the Company's stores i n Metropolitan Toronto. The employer contended that each store was an appropriate unit and the l a r g e r unit was inappropriate. The board stated that i t would not be "conducive to sound c o l l e c t i v e bargaining f o r a s e r i e s of bargaining units to be established i n respect of groups of employees performing s i m i l a r tasks and having ( 34) s i m i l a r bargaining i n t e r e s t s " w . This makes i t very p l a i n that the nature of work performed as a f a c t o r i n appropriateness i s an amalgam of other considerations. In t h i s case the community of i n t e r e s t was so s u b s t a n t i a l ( 3 1 ) Amalgamated Transit Union", D i v i s i o n 5 3 8 v. Corp or-" atio n of the C i t y of Calgary (1965) 6 5 C.L.L.C. 16,026; Amalgamated Tra n s i t Union, D i v i s i o n 5 3 8 v. Corporation of the C i t y of Calgary (1964) 64 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 0 2 1 . ( 3 2 ) Internation Longshoreman's Association and Empire  Stevedoring Ltd. et a l . (1963) 6 3 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 3 0 0 . ( 3 3 ) United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and P l a s t i c Workers of  America v. The Goodyear Service Stores ( 1 9 6 5 ) 6 5 C.L.L.C. 16,018. ( 3 4 ) i b i d . , at p. 6 9 2 . - 44 -that i t outweighed the f a c t of d i f f e r e n t work l o c a t i o n . In each case the board w i l l be involved i n weighing these considerations i n order to determine the e f f e c t that the nature of work performed w i l l have on the determination of appropriateness. I l l - Preserving the freedom of choice of the pa r t i e s In accordance with the previous discussion of the concerns of the parti e s i n the determination of appropriateness, labour r e l a t i o n s boards i n Canada seem to have been e s p e c i a l l y cognizant of the wishes of the p a r t i e s . As an adjunct to t h i s concern, boards have also taken into account the hi s t o r y of bargaining i n a p a r t i c -u l a r workplace as being i n d i c a t i v e of the wishes of the p a r t i e s ' . The reason given f o r stress i n g the importance of t h i s f a c t o r i s that i n d u s t r i a l peace i s best promoted where a unit corresponds to the wishes of the pa r t i e s and preserves the idea of freedom of choice i n the process of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. A board i s not bound by the agreement of the partie s as to the appropriate u n i t . However, t h i s type ( 3 5 ) s . 6 ( l ) of the Labour Relations Act R.S.O. 1 9 7 0 , c . 2 3 2 allows the board to conduct a vote among the employees to determine t h e i r wishes as to the appropriateness of the unit. - 45 -of agreement can be a c r u c i a l f a c t o r . In F o n t h i l l Lumber C ? 6 ) Ltd. , the Ontario Board noted the reason why t h i s type of agreement can be a c r u c i a l f a c t o r : " I f the par t i e s , who should know t h e i r own a f f a i r s and what i s good f o r them, agree that, f o r t h e i r own p a r t i c -u l a r purposes, a c e r t a i n bargaining unit described i n language agreed to and understood by them, i s appropriate f o r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining, or that c e r t a i n employees because of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s should not be i n c l u d -ed i n a bargaining unit with other employees performing d i f f e r e n t duties and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t i n p r i n c i p l e to conceive why t h e i r agreement whould not receive paramount consideration i n the determination or settlement of these matters." (37) Therefore, i n Ontario, unless there are strong reasons to ( ^ 8) the contrary, such as contravention of another Board p o l i c y , the Board accepts the agreement of the pa r t i e s as resolvi n g ( 39) the issue of a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s . w ( 3 6 ) United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Millmen and Lumberyard Workers of America and  F o n t h i l l Lumber Ltd. (1964) 64 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 3 0 5 . ( 3 7 ) i b i d . , at p. 1260. ( 3 8 ) International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers v. Kenora Motor Products Ltd. O.L.R.B. Rep. October I 9 6 6 p. 5 4 0 . ( 3 9 ) International Union of D o l l & Toy Workers of the United States and Canada v. Star D o l l Manufacturing  Co. Ltd. O.L.R.B. Rep. January 1967 p. 76 5; Canadian  Union of Public Employees v. Township of Markham O.L.R.B. Rep. August 1 9 6 9 p. 592. - 46 -I f there i s no agreement between the pa r t i e s then the wishes of the parti e s are not a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r . They are however a very important fa c t o r , e s p e c i a l l y where: a c r a f t group wishes to sever from a la r g e r u n i t ^ 0 ) a c u l t u r a l l y d i s t i n c t group wishes to sever from a l a r g e r unit and there w i l l be no loss of stable labour relations^"*"} employees desire to be excluded from a unit because of professional c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and where union desires indicate a preference between two equally appropriate u n i t s ^ - ^ . However, any reasons advanced f o r allowing the desires of the parties to govern appropriateness must be very compelling reasons, e s p e c i a l l y i f they desire to be (40) United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of "lAmerica and Kent T i l e and Marble Co. Ltd. and T i l e  Setters, Marble Masons, Tegazzo Workers and Compo- s i t i o n T i l e Layers Union No.16 (1961) 61 C.L.L.C. 16, 204; Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and  Shereton Brock Hotel and Hotel and Restaurant Employ-ees (1961) 61 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 2 0 5 . (41) Syndicat general du cinema de l a t e l e v i s i o n v. Canadian Broadcasting•Corporation et a l . (1968) 68 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 0 3 6 . (42) Building Service Employees' Local Union No. 3 3 3 etc. and Wadena Union Hospital (Wadena, Sask.) ( 1 9 6 9 ) 6 9 C.L.L.C. 16,0 5 2 . ( 4 3 ) R e t a i l , Wholesale and Department Store Union and  Lloydminster and D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l Co-operative  Association, Limited (1962) 62 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 2 5 0 . - 47 -severed from an already e x i s t i n g u n i t . A board must be c a r e f u l not to assign too much weight to the desires of the employees f o r sometimes these desires d i r e c t l y correspond with the extent of organization. To c e r t i f y i n these s i t u a t i o n s would have an adverse e f f e c t on other employees who may have a sub-s t a n t i a l community of i n t e r e s t with the employees repre-sented by the applicant but who do not wish trade union r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . ^ 5 ) A f i n a l f a c t o r i n preserving the freedom of choice of the part i e s i s the r e l i a n c e on previous patterns of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i n the workplace. This f a c t o r usually a r i s e s i n s i t u a t i o n s where an applicant union seeks to carve a unit out of an e x i s t i n g u n i t . Boards are concerned about the dis r u p t i o n of e x i s t i n g units and there-fore, unless the previous bargaining h i s t o r y shows that the group of employees who comprise the applicant unit (44) Syndicat National des Employees des Usines des  Chemins de Fer v. Canadian P a c i f i c Railway Company  et a l . (1967) 67 C.L.L.C. 16,001. (45) This problem has been recognized i n : International  Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft-Drink  and D i s t i l l e r y Workers of America v. Coca-Cola L i m i t -ed O.L.R.B. Rep. June 1968 p.264.; National Union of  Public Service Employees and B r o c k v i l l e General  Hospital (1957) 57 C.L.L.C. 18,061. - 48 -bargained as a d i s t i n c t e n t i t y within the lar g e r unit, a p p l i c a t i o n s to carve out a unit w i l l be re j e c t e d ^ ^ ^ . POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Canadian labour r e l a t i o n s boards have given strong recognition to s t a b i l i t y i n labour r e l a t i o n s as a p o l i c y underlying c o l l e c t i v e bargaining l e g i s l a t i o n . This consideration a r i s e s i n two types of f a c t u a l patterns: where an applicant seeks to sever a group of employees from an already c e r t i f i e d l a r g e r body and where an applicant seeks c e r t i f i c a t i o n f or a small group of employees and i s met with the objection that the appropriate uni t i s la r g e r than that proposed. Although i n both these s i t u a t i o n s the p o l i c y of s t a b i l i t y i s the underlying f a c t o r i t i s useful (46) International Brotherhood of E l e c t r i c a l Workers, Local 3 5 3 v. Board of Education f o r the C i t y of  Toronto v. Toronto Board of Education Caretakers  Union, Local 134, Canadian Union of Public Employees O.L.R.B. Rep. May 1 9 6 5 , p. 1 2 5 -( 4 7) Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and  Canadian P a c i f i c Railway Company and Internat i o n a l  Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ( 1 9 5 2 ) 5 2 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 6 2 3 ; International Union of Operating Engineers, Hoisting and Portable L . 8 7 0 and Utah Co. of the Amer-icas and United Steelworkers of America ( 1 9 5 9 ) 5 9 2 7 2 , C.L.C. and Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corp. et a l . ( 1 9 7 0 ) 7 0 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 0 0 3 . - 49 -to examine patterns separately as they manifest one concern through completely d i f f e r e n t f a c t u a l contexts. Where an applicant i s seeking severance of a group of employees from an already c e r t i f i e d unit, i t places a board i n a s i t u a t i o n where i t must choose be-tween a l t e r n a t i v e s . I t has been said that i n t h i s s i t u -a t i o n the board must choose what i s the most appropriate u n i t . ^ ^ The decisive f a c t o r i n making t h i s choice i s (La) an "aversion to fragmentation" y based upon the as s e r t i o n that i t i s not conducive to stable labour r e l a t i o n s or orderly c o l l e c t i v e bargaining negotiations to subdivide a unit which has already been found to be appropriate.^ 0'' This p o l i c y also applies where a recognizable c r a f t unit wishes to be severed from an established l a r g e r u n i t . ^ 1 ' 1 Further, boards w i l l not (48) ' Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Corpor-a t i o n of the Township of Markham O.L.R.B. Rep. August 1 9 6 9 , P. 5 9 2 at p. 5 9 4 . (49) i b i d . : ( 5 0 ) Syndicat National des Employees des Usines des  Chemins de Fer v. Canadian P a c i f i c Railway Company  et a l . (1967) 6 7 C.L.L.C. 16,001; Syndicat General  du Cinema et de l a T e l e v i s i o n v. Canadian Broadcast-ing Corporation et a l . (1966) 66 C.L.L.C. 16,081 ( 5 1 ) Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and Canada  Foundries and Forgings Ltd', and International Union,  United Automobile, A i r c r a f t and A g r i c u l t u r a l Implement  Workers of America (1961) 61 C.L.L.C. 1 6 , 2 0 3 . - 50 -allow fragmentation to occur by allowing the exclusion from the bargaining unit, of a group of employees who ( 52) would normally be included i n such a u n i t . w In t h i s f a c t u a l pattern, boards are concerned about possible i n c -reases i n labour s t r i f e due to an employer having to deal with a m u l t i p l i c i t y of bargaining u n i t s . Where an applicant seeks c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r a small group of employees he must again combat concerns of s t a b i l i t y . In Board of Education f o r the C i t y of :.. . - . Toronto , t h e b o a r d refused to c e r t i f y a unit of sec r e t a r i e s and c l e r i c a l s t a f f of Public Schools. The employer argued that the proper uni t was one composed of o f f i c e and c l e r i c a l s t a f f of a l l schools under i t s admini-s t r a t i o n , not just Public Schools. In accepting t h i s arguement the board stated that "the essence of approp-riateness i n the context of labour r e l a t i o n s i s that a uni t of employees be able to carry on a v i a b l e and mean-i n g f u l c o l l e c t i v e bargaining r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r employer." ( 5 2 ) Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Caulfred  Burns and Gibson Limited O.L.R.B. Rep. May 1966, p . 1 1 5 . ( 5 3 ) Canadian Union Public Employees and The Board of  Education f o r the C i t y of Toronto and Group of  Employees O.L.R.B. Rep. July 1 9 7 0 , p. 4 3 0 . ( 5 4 ) i b i d . , at p. 4 3 5 . This has been repeated i n ; Canadian Union of Public Employees and The Univers-i t y of Western Ontario O.L.R.B. Rep. December 1 9 7 2 , p. 1 0 3 8 . - 51 -This meaningful c o l l e c t i v e bargaining r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not possible where an employer i s faced with multiple bargaining groups and when undue fragmentation may have t h i s r e s u l t the board w i l l not c e r t i f y . The board paid p a r t i c u l a r a t t ention to the employees' r i g h t to determine t h e i r own bargaining agent but found that t h e i r concern f o r s t a b i l i t y i n labour r e l a t i o n s outweighed t h e i r concern f o r the r i g h t s of the employees. C . COMMENTS In his draft study f o r the report of the Task Force on Labour R e l a t i o n s ^ , Professor Herman outlined s i x public p o l i c y objectives pertinent to i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s . These were: 1) " L a i s s e z - f a i r e " 2) Maximum I n d u s t r i a l Freedom of Choice 3 ) S t a b i l i z a t i o n of C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining Relationships 4 ) Minimize Disturbance of E x i s t i n g I n s t i t u t i o n s 5 ) Maximization of National Economic Performance 6 ) Protection of the Public Interest ( 5 6 ) I t i s submitted that the forgoing examination of the case law indicates that Canadian labour r e l a t i o n s boards have ( 5 5 ) Woods, Canadian I n d u s t r i a l Relations: The Report of the Task Force on Labour Relations (1968). ( 5 6 ) Herman, The Size and Composition of Bargaining Units ( 1 9 6 8 ) at pp. 4 9 - 5 3 -s - 52 -p l a c e d g r e a t s t r e s s on o b j e c t i v e s 3, 4 and 5 i n order to meet the o b j e c t i v e o f p r o t e c t i o n of the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , Throughout the case law we have seen a p r e - o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the s t a t u s quo and attempts to d i s t u r b i t have been u n i f o r m l y u n s u c c e s s f u l . We have a l s o seen t h a t boards a c c e p t the i d e a t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n of too g r e a t a number of u n i t s w i l l have an adverse a f f e c t on the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by i n c r e a s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of work stoppages thereby down-g r a d i n g n a t i o n a l economic performance. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s i s p u r e l y a d i s c r e t i o n a r y matter. S t a t u t e s p r o v i d e no guidance f o r t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n so t h a t t h e r e i s enough f l e x i b i l i t y to c o n s i d e r the concerns of the p a r t i e s - on a case by case b a s i s . One has to q u e s t i o n whether boards have committed themselves to the i d e a of f l e x i b i l i t y f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: F i r s t , a l t h o u g h boards m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e i r p r e v i o u s d i s -p o s i t i o n s of cases are not d e t e r m i n a t i v e of any new cases, t h e r e i s evidence to suggest t h a t p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s ( 57) form a data bank upon which g r e a t r e l i a n c e ^ i s p l a c e d . w Secondly, the d e c i s i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t concerns of s t a b i l i t y o v e r r i d e any o t h e r concerns, whether the concern f o r (57) see, Sack and L e v i n s o n , O n t a r i o Labour R e l a t i o n s Board P r a c t i c e (1973), a t p. 6l. - 53 -s t a b i l i t y i s expressed by e i t h e r of the p a r t i e s or by the board. These comments upon p r e v i o u s board p o l i c y are c r i t i c a l i n s o f a r as they r e v e a l a h e s i t a n c y to o u t l i n e f o r the p a r t i e s the p o l i c y which boards w i l l f o l l o w i n determ-i n i n g a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s and i n t h a t they i n d i c a t e an over-p r o t e c t i o n . " T h i s approach f o c u s e s on the f a i l u r e s of c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and tends to o v e r l o o k i t s p o s i t i v e g a i n s . As a g e n e r a l r u l e , emergencies of the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t can b e t t e r be handled through l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned w i t h s t r i k e s and emergency s i t u a t i o n s than through b a r g a i n i n g u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . " ^ ( 5 8 ) supra. note 56 a t p. 5 6 . - 54 -Chapter Three - Unit Determination Under The Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia* (1) (hereinafter, the Code) ; A. A c q u i s i t i o n of Bargaining Rights The procedures and requirements f o r the acquis-i t i o n " of bargaining r i g h t s through c e r t i f i c a t i o n are outlined i n Part I I I of the Code. Successful compliance with these w i l l r e s u l t i n a trade union being granted c e r t -i f i c a t i o n as the bargaining agent f o r employees i n the bar-gaining u n i t which the Board has determined as appropriate. C e r t i f i c a t i o n also gives a trade union c e r t a i n c o l l e c t i v e bargaining r i g h t s which are outlined i n the various other Parts of the Code. However, the Code f a l l s short of r e q u i r -ing formal recognition by c e r t i f i c a t i o n as a precondition of the r i g h t to bargain c o l l e c t i v e l y . (2) In Delta H o s p i t a l , v ' the Board recognized the v a l i d i t y of voluntary recognition agreements as a means of (1) S.B.C. 1973 (2nd Sess.) c.122 and amendments thereto. A l l statutory references are to t h i s Act unless other-wise indicated. (2) Delta Hospital and Health Labour Relations Association  of B r i t i s h Columbia and Hospital Employees Union, Local  180 and International Union of-Operating Engineers, Local 882. B.O.L.R.B. Decision No ">k/?7 - 55 -gaining access to the c o l l e c t i v e bargaining regime admin-i s t e r e d by the Code. Voluntary recognition i s an i n d u s t r i a l (3) r e l a t i o n s f a c t which the Code impliedly r e c o g n i z e s , w / and which the i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s community has taken advant-age of f o r a number of years.- The advantages of such agree-ments are sketched i n the decision? "Each of the two routes to l e g a l recognition of a trade union - - -recog-n i t i o n by compulsion of a c e r t i f i c a t e and recognition by agreement - - has '.its own advantages. The p r i n c i p a l advantage of the f i r s t i s that i t i s an orderly, statutory process and one which i s overseen or monitored by an independant t r i b u n a l having the resp-o n s i b i l i t y to protect the legitimate i n t e r e s t of employers, trade-unions and employees. The most commonly noted advantages to recognition by agreement are that the p a r t i e s have come together i n i t i a l l y on amicable terms rather than as adversaries; that the parameters of the bargaining! r e l a t i o n s h i p are determined by the p a r t i e s themselves rather than by some external agency which may or may not f u l l y understand the i n t r i c -acies of t h e i r work s i t u a t i o n ; and that • expense and delay are avoided." ( 4 ) This decision confirmed the previous p o s i t i o n under the Labour Relations A c t ^ as interpreted i n Beverage Dispensers and Culinary Workers' Union, Local 835 et a l . v. ( 3 ) for example; s . 3 9 ( D , s . 3 9 ( 3 ) ( a ) , s . 6 ( l ) , s . 6 2 ( l ) and s . 6 3 ( D (fa) • ( 4 ) supra, footnote ( 2 ) at p.2 1 . ( 5 ) R.S.B.C. I960, C . 2 0 5 . - 56 -Terra Nova Motor Inns L t d . v ' Since the Code did not seek to make express changes to meet t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i t may-have been.presumed that the same s i t u a t i o n would obtain under the Code. B. The Administrative Process Labour r e l a t i o n s boards have two very active components. There i s the " l e g a l component" con s i s t i n g of the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and t h e i r various a s s i s t a n t s whose work i s ovservable i n the form of decisions rendered by the board. Complementing t h i s e n t i t y i s the "administrative component" whose job i t i s to process applications f o r c e r t -i f i c a t i o n , and put a l l relevant matters into e a s i l y d i g e s t i b l e form so that the task of the " l e g a l component" i s that much easier. A l l too often the duties of the "administrative component" are ignored, e s p e c i a l l y i n l e g a l l y oriented a r t i c l e s which tend to focus only on the decision making aspect. Given that the whole decision making process would be mush l e s s e f f i c i e n t without the e f f o r t s of administrative s t a f f , t h e i r contribution forms as i n t e g r a l part of the (7) c e r t i f i c a t i o n process and should be commented upon. (6) (1974) 74 C.L.L.C. 14,253 (S.'C.C.). (7) In t h i s area, I am g r a t e f u l to Mr. H.E. Stennett, Deputy-Registrar and Mr. M.E. Clark, Labour Relations O f f i c e r , of the s t a f f of the Labour Relations Board of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r t h e i r elaboration upon the administrative function. - 57 -The c e r t i f i c a t i o n , process as outlined i n Part I I I of the Labour Code sets the framework f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n i n the various configurations i n which i t can be presented to the Board (( i . e . ) i n i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s , multi-employer c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , or c e r t i f i c a t i o n a pplications where there i s an incumbent). I t also sets up mechanisms which can be employ-ed by the Board to a s s i s t i n i t s determinations, namely rep-resentation votes, pre-hearing votes, c e r t i f i c a t i o n without a vote. The statue does not contain an outline of the administrative process although the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour Relations Board Regulations ; are h e l p f u l i n t h i s regard. The administrative process followed a f t e r r e c e i p t of an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s the same regardless of the section pursuant to which i t i s made. The Board acknowledges r e c e i p t of the a p p l i c a t i o n and sends a notice of a p p l i c a t i o n to the employer i n a form prescribed by the (Q) Regulations. 7 1 This notice of a p p l i c a t i o n requires the employer to bring a p p l i c a t i o n to the attention of h i s employees by posting notices or i n such other manner as the Board may d i r e c t . T h e s e notices must be kept posted f o r 5 days and interested p a r t i e s have 5 days to make sub-missions on the a p p l i c a t i o n . The Board may r e l i e v e from (8) (9) Reg. 29(2). (1.0) Reg. 8. - 58 -these time l i m i t s . Concurrent with the notice of a p p l i c a t i o n being sent to the employer, an I n d u s t r i a l Relations O f f i c e r from the Department of Labour (I.R.O.) i s appointed to conduct (12) i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on the Board's behalf. ' This o f f i c e r conducts extensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , which have been outlined (IT) by the R e g i s t r a r . v Generally these include: e s t a b l i s h -ing whether the employees outlined i n the a p p l i c a t i o n are on the employer's p a y r o l l and i f they are members i n good standing of the union; v e r i f y i n g the information on the a p p l i c a t i o n and checking to see i f i t i n f r i n g e s on an e x i s t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n ; i n v e s t i g a t i n g the status of the employees concerned f o r possible i n c l u s i o n s and exclusions from the union and checking the union's by-laws and c o n s t i -tution. The I.R.O. then submits h i s report to the Board who w i l l then determin the appropriate u n i t by reference to t h i s report and the submission of the p a r t i e s . I t i s important to note the breadth of the power given to the Board i n u t i l i z a t i o n of the I.R.O.*s report. The Board may receive and accept any evidence i t considers p r o p e r . I t may use the report i n i t s del i b e r a t i o n s and ( 1 1 ) Reg. 1 6 . ( 1 2 ) s . 8 ( 2 ) . ( 1 3 ) see Bone, Notes From the Registrar, ( 1 9 7 5 ) Perspect-ive Volume 3 5 No.l. (14) s . 4 2 ( l ) . ( 1 5 ) s . 1 9 ( 1 ) . - 59 -(1 £>) i s not required to disclose the contents to any party. (17) I t may he that i t i s not permitted to disclose the contents. (1 P>) These statutory d i r e c t i v e s are reinforced by the regulations, e s p e c i a l l y as the report pertains to information r e l a t i n g to (19) membership i n good standing i n a trade union. This use of I.R.O.'s reports has been challenged and i s now one of the grounds f o r seeking to have the Code's p r i v a t i v e clause impugned as unc o n s t i t u t i o n a l . Why i s i t important to have undergone t h i s elaboration of the administrative process? I t may be that the presence of t h i s i nvestigatory function i s one of the factors which makes the Board d i f f e r e n t i n specie from a Court. In Alex Tomko v. Labour Relations Board (Nova Scotia) et a l . ^ 2 Q ^ the Supreme Court of Canada was considering the question whether a cease and d e s i s t order issued by the respondent Board was i n v a l i d because such an order was a j u d i c i a l order and could only be issued by an e n t i t y created pursuant to s . 9 6 of the B r i t i s h North America Act. ( 1 6 ) S.19(2). ( 1 7 ) s . 1 2 7 ( 3 ) , see Robinson, L i t t l e and Company Ltd. and  R e t a i l Clerks Union. Local 1 5 1 8 f ! 9 7 5 l 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 8 1 ; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.32/75-(18) Reg. 1 3 . ( 1 9 ) Reg. 2 9 ( 3 ) . ( 2 0 ) ( 1 9 7 6 ) 76 C.L.L.C. 14 , 0 0 5 (S.C.C.). One of the d i s t i n c t i o n s between the respondent Board and a Court was drawn by Chief J u s t i c e Laskin: "The Labour Relations Board or the Construction Industry panel does not approach the issue of a cease and d e s i s t order i n the same way as as Court approaches the issue of an i n j u n c t i o n . Unlike a Court, the Board or Panel makes i t s own i n v e s t -i g a t i o n of the issues r a i s e d by a complaint and decides f o r i t s e l f on i t s own f i n d i n g s whether an in t e r i m order should i s s u e ; " ( 2 1 ) Therefore, t h i s e f f o r t to enlighten as to the administrative process assumes greater s i g n i f i c a n c e . This process, which allows the board the chance to s e t t l e the matter p r i o r to hearing and gives i t close contact with the issue at hand, w i l l be an important f a c t o r i n determining whether an administrative t r i b u n a l i s e x e r c i s i n g a power properly the preserve of a judge appointed pursuant to s . 9 6 of the B r i t -( 2 2 ) i s h North America A c t . x ' C. Statutory L i m i t a t i o n s on the Board's D i s c r e t i o n to Determinf the Appropriate Unit There are many matters which could be considered under t h i s heading, however, some questions r e l a t e more to ( 2 1 ) i b i d . , at p. 1 4 , 2 2 5 . ( 2 2 ) For an a n a l y s i s of t h i s and other d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f a c t o r s see: Weiler, The Administrative T r i b u n a l : A View From the Inside ( 1 9 7 6 ) 26 U. of T.L.J. 1 9 3 . - 61 -the concept of a "unit" than others. Therefore, those l i m i t a t i o n s which r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to the concept of the u n i t w i l l he discussed more f u l l y than questions which, although they arise i n the c e r t i f i c a t i o n process, do not r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to the idea of the "unit". I - Bars to C e r t i f i c a t i o n There are c e r t a i n considerations which may deny a group of employees the r i g h t to apply f o r cert-i f i c a t i o n . These are very serious l i m i t a t i o n s as they may involve the denial of c e r t i f i c a t i o n to worker groups who meet the d e f i n i t i o n of the word "employee" and are therefore, ostensibly, covered by the Code. (i) Employer Dominated of" Influenced Unions -I t i s a n t i t h e t i c to the notion of c o l l e c t i v e bargain-ing as an exercise i n countervailing power that a board c e r t i f y a unit which i s a puppet of the employer. This idea i s so repugnant to the concept of free c o l l e c t i v e bargaining that the Code provides two mechanisms to prevent the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of such an organization. The Code s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t s the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of an employer - bZ -( 2 1 ) dominated or influenced u n i t v J l and such an organization, (24) not meeting the d e f i n i t i o n of a trade union^ ' , cannot "be c e r t i f i e d under s . 3 9 ( l ) . This dual mechanism prevents the p o s s i b i l i t y of an organization being a trade union yet (25) s t i l l a p r o h i b i t e d a s s o c i a t i o n . •Jl ( 2 6 ) In McCoy Bros, Ltd. ; the Board considered s . 5 0(a) and pointed out three aspects of note: 1) i t speaks of the formation, administration management or p o l i c y 2) i t concerns i t s e l f not only with organizations (23) s . 5 0 No organization or a s s o c i a t i o n of employees (a) the formation, administration, management or p o l i c y of which i s , i n the opinion of the board, dominated or influenced by an employer or a person a c t i n g on his behalf; or (b) that d i s c r i m i n a t e s against any person, contrary to the.Human Rights Act, s h a l l be c e r t i f i e d f o r the employees, and an agreement entered i n t o between such an organization or a s s o c i a t -ion of employees and such an employer s h a l l be deemed not to be a c o l l e c t i v e agreement. (24) s . l ( l ) "trade-union" mean a l o c a l or p r o v i n c i a l organization or a s s o c i a t i o n of employees, or a l o c a l or p r o v i n c i a l branch of a n a t i o n a l or i n t e r -n a t i o n a l organization or a s s o c i a t i o n of employees within the Province, that has, as one of i t s pur-poses, the r e g u l a t i o n i n the Province of r e l a t i o n s between employers and employees through c o l l e c t i v e bargaining, and includes a c o u n c i l of trade-unions and an a s s o c i a t i o n of trade-unions, but does not include any organization or a s s o c i a t i o n of employ-ees that i s dominated or influ e n c e d by an employer; (25) see Bond Brothers' Sawmill and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Woodworkers  of America, Local 1-424 and C h r i s t i a n Labour A s s o c i a t i o n  of Canada Loc a l 44 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 155/74. (26) McCoy Bros. Ltd. and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of Operating  Engineers, L o c a l Union No. 115 and McCoy Bros. Employees' As s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.9/77-- 63 -that are "dominated" hut also those which are "influenced by" an employer 3) unlike other sections of the Code, t h i s one gives the Board no d i s c r e t i o n . ( 2 7 ) The section provides no guidance i n determining whether an organization i s dominated therefore i t i s the Board's subjective opinion which s e t t l e s the matter. The guiding p r i n c i p l e chosen i s to consider whether, i n l i g h t of whatever the f a c t u a l pattern may be, the kind of arm's length bargaining contemplated by the Code can e x i s t . In t h i s case there were f a c t s suggesting that the formation of an employees' as s o c i a t i o n was a response to the employer's r e f u s a l to deal with a bona f i d e trade union. Therefore, a proper arm's length r e l a t i o n s h i p could not e x i s t with an association which was a response to such pressure. The p r o v i s i o n of f i n a n c i a l support, i n any form, destroys the (28) p o s s i b i l i t y of such a r e l a t i o n s h i p , as do any other (29) i n d i c a t i o n s of employer bias m favour of an organization ' ( 2 7 ) i b i d . , at pp.9-10.' ( 2 8 ) Vernon Paving Ltd., T r i m i l Co. Ltd. and Vernon Arm-strong A l l i e d Workers Association and International  Union of Operating Engineers, Local 1 1 5 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1 9 / 7 6 . ( 2 9 ) see Rempel Bros. Concrete Ltd., Rempel Bros. Concrete  (Langley) Ltd. and F a i r West Concrete and Construction  Supply Employees' Association B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 7 0 / 7 6 . - 64 -There i s some i n d i c a t i o n that the employer's con-duct must be observable by the employees before i t can be said to influence them. In Canex P l a c e r ^ - ^ , conduct by the employer was not enough to characterize one of the competing unions as a "sweetheart" because the employer's conduct was reasonably d i s c r e e t and the evidence did not disclose any fav o r i t i s m . The Board has not had occasion to view s . 5 0 i n the l i g h t of conduct other than employer conduct, except to decide that the f a i l u r e of a trade union to i n s t r u c t i t s members to respect the picket l i n e s of another union i s not s u f f i c i e n t reason to f i n d the former (31) to be dominated or i n f l u e n c e d . w ' ' ( i i ) P r i o r C e r t i f i c a t i o n Bar - The Board w i l l dismiss an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n where there i s an incumbent union which has been unable to conclude a c o l l e c t i v e agreement with the employer and s i x months have not elapsed since the date of c e r t i f i c a t i o n or the Board has not consented to an a p p l i c a t i o n p r i o r to the ( 3 0 ) Canadian Association of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and  A l l i e d Workers, Local 10 and Canex Placer Limited TEndaco Mines Division) and United Steelworkers of  America, Local 9 5 9 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 9 1 / 7 4 . ( 3 1 ) International Association of Machinists and Aerospace  Workers, Lodge 1 8 5 7 and Dominion (Vancouver) Motors  Ltd. and R e t a i l , Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1 0 2 / 7 4 . - 65 -expiry of the s i x month p e r i o d . ^ ' ( i i i ) C o l l e c t i v e Agreement Bar - The Board w i l l dismiss an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n where there i s a c o l l e c t i v e agreement i n force unless such a p p l i c a t i o n i s made the seventh and eighth months i n each year of i t s term, ("the open season"). There are two exceptions to t h i s bar and a p p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be allowed where; the applicant i s a trade union who i s a party to a c o l l e c t i v e agreement but not c e r t i f i e d with respect to the employees covered by the agreement, and where the applicant i s a council of trade unions who seeks to be c e r t i f i e d to represent i t s component members. ( 3 2 ) s . 3 9 ( 2 ) A trade-union claiming to have as members i n good standing a ma jori.ty of employees i n a u n i t that, i s appropriate f o r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining may, subject to the regulations, apply to the board to be c e r t i f i e d f o r that u n i t where (a) no c o l l e c t i v e agreement i s i n force, and e i t h e r (i) s i x months have elapsed since the date of c e r t i f i c a t i o n of a trade-union-fof the" unit; or ( i i ) the board has consented to an a p p l i c a t i o n before the expiry of the period of s i x ..... months; ( 3 3 ) s . 3 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) a c o l l e c t i v e agreement i s i n force, only during the seventh and eighth months i n each year of i t s term or of any renewal or continuation thereof, except that (i) a trade-union that i s a party to the c o l l e c t i v e agreement, but i s not c e r t i f i e d with respect to employees covered by the agreement, may apply at any time; and ( i i ) a council of trade-unions comprised of trade-unions that are p a r t i e s to c o l l e c t i v e agree-ments may apply at any time to be c e r t i f i e d f o r a l l of those trade-unions. - 66 -The Board took the opportunity to outline the l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y behind s . 3 9 ( 2 ) i n Western Canada ( 3 4 ) Steel w 1 . The applicant had succeeded i n organizing more than 35%> but l e s s than 50% of the incumbent union's members and urged the Board to exercise the d i s c r e t i o n granted i t by s . 4 3 to order a representation vote i n any case. The Board held that s . 4 3 could not be used to c i r c -umvent the requirements of s . 3 9 « The requirement of having to organize a majority of the employees as set out i n s . 3 9 ( 2 ) (as opposed to 35% f o r an i n i t i a l application) draws a d e l i b -erate d i s t i n c t i o n . This p r o v i s i o n r e l a t e s to already organ-ized workers and therefore there i s not the same urgency i n t h e i r r i g h t to change bargaining agents as there i s " i n the r i g h t of unorganized workers to be admitted to the c o l l e c t i v e bargaining regime. The Board also f e l t i t was v i t a l to preserve the i n t e g r i t y of the majority requirement because of the disruptive e f f e c t of a change i n the bargaining representative. I t has been pointed out that s . 3 9 ( 2 ) advocates a f l e x i b i l i t y which may c o n f l i c t with a ( 3 5) p o l i c y which favours s t a b i l i t y i n b a r g a i n i n g . T h e ( 3 4 ) Canadian Association of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and  A l l i e d Workers, Local l ( B . C ) , Canadian E l e c t r i c a l  Workers and Western Canada Steel Limited and United  Steelworkers of America, Local 3 3 0 2 B.C.L.R.B. Decis-ion No. 3 / 7 4 , ( 1 9 7 4 ) 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 2 2 . ( 3 5 ) White Spot Limited and Canadian Food and Associated Services Union, Local No. 1 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.84/75* - 67 -Board has r e s t r i c t e d the a p p l i c a t i o n of the time l i m i t s i n s . 3 9 ( 2 ) to instances where there i s a c o l l e c t i v e agreement i n force f o r the "unit" proposed by the a p p l i -cant. This allows a union to make a p p l i c a t i o n i f only some of the employees i n i t s proposed u n i t are covered by an e x i s t i n g agreement, thereby preserving the balance between f l e x i b i l i t y and s t a b i l i t y . ( i v ) P r i o r A p p l i c a t i o n Bar - The Board has the d i s c r e t i o n to p r o h i b i t repeated a p p l i c a t i o n s from the same app l i c a n t . D ' The t e s t f o r deciding whether an a p p l i c a n t i s the "same a p p l i c a n t " was o u t l i n e d i n (37) Western Canada S t e e l L t d . w ' In t h i s case the Board received a timely a p p l i c a t i o n under the p r o v i s i o n s of s«39(2) (a " r a i d " s i t u a t i o n ) from a l o c a l of a union which had l o s t a representation vote approximately one. month e a r l i e r . The a p p l i c a n t l o c a l was of d i f f e r e n t composition than the p r e v i o u s l y defeated l o c a l . The ( 3 6 ) s.49 Where the trade-union i s not c e r t i f i e d as bargaining agent under s e c t i o n 45, the board may designate the length of time, not l e s s than ninety days, that must elapse before a new a p p l i c a t i o n by the same appl i c a n t may be considered. ( 3 7 ) Western Canada S t e e l Ltd. and United Steelworkers of  America, Lo c a l 3 3 0 2 and Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of  I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and A l l i e d Workers, Local 6 , [ 1 9 7 6 ] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 1 9 ; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 7 7 / 7 5 -- 68 -company and incumbent union asked the Board to invoke the p r i o r a p p l i c a t i o n bar. The Board s t a t e d t h a t the p r i o r a p p l i c a t i o n bar i s of g r e a t e r importance i n a r a i d s i t u a t i o n than on an i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n because i t s r a t i o n a l e i s to provide a c o o l i n g - o f f p e r i o d . There-for e i t would, c o n t r a r y to the p o l i c y of s t a b i l i t y , r e s t r i c t to o p e r a t i o n of the bar to i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s i t u a t i o n s . The t e s t f o r determining whether an a p p l i c a n t i s the "same a p p l i c a n t " i s whether i t i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l i r r e s p e c t i v e of l e g a l form. This a p p r a i s a l must be made from the p o i n t of view of the employees who are the s u b j e c t of the a p p l i c a t i o n . F u r t h e r matters of note i n t h i s s e c t i o n are th a t once the bar i s r a i s e d i t cannot be f o r l e s s than 90 d a y s ^ - ^ but can be f o r more^-^. (v) D i s c r e t i o n a r y Bar - The Board has the power 1 to c e r t i f y or re f u s e to c e r t i f y , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any other p r o v i s i o n of the Code, i f i t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n vote w i l l not d i s c l o s e the true wishes (38) i b i d . -2. (39) Spoots Lumber and B u i l d i n g Supply L i m i t e d and  Teamsters L o c a l 213 B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 1 0 6 / 7 4 . - 69 -of the employees. ' The Board also has the power to place conditions upon a c e r t i f i c a t i o n and place a time l i m i t f o r compliance with these conditions. I I - Other Preliminary Matters There are other questions a r i s i n g on an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n which, although they may not he considered u n t i l a f t e r the appropriate u n i t has been determined, have an important e f f e c t i n deciding the composition of the u n i t or determining who may vote i n a representation e l e c t i o n . Sometimes these questions are so s i g n i f i c a n t that t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n may determine whether an a p p l i c a n t has enough support to seek c e r t i f i c a t i o n . An example of t h i s type of consideration i s the question whether a person i s an employee and there-fore e n t i t l e d to the p r o t e c t i o n of the Code. The s t a t u t o r y ( 4 0 ) s . 4 3 ( 3 ) Notwithstanding any other p r o v i s i o n , where the board i s s a t i s f i e d that a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n vote i s u n l i k e l y to d i s c l o s e the true wishes of the employees, the board may c e r t i f y or refuse to c e r t i f y the trade-union as the bargaining agent f o r the unit without d i r e c t i n g that a representation vote be taken; but the board may impose such conditions as i t considers necessary or advisable upon the trade-union, and, i f the conditions are not s u b s t a n t i a l l y f u l f i l l e d to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the board within twelve months from the date . of the c e r t i f i c a t i o n , or within such l e s s e r period of time as the board may order, the c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be deemed to be c a n c e l l e d . / u -(Li) d e f i n i t i o n of employee provides l i t t l e guidance v ' and the Board has recognized that "there i s no exhaustive l i s t of f a c t o r s or i n d i c i a which i s necessary to, or s u f f i c i e n t f o r , the existence of a contract of s e r v i c e . The Board must perform a balancing operation by weighing the f a c t o r s which p o i n t i n one d i r e c t i o n and balancing them (42) against those p o i n t i n g i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . " ^ ' In assessing the cumulative impact of a l l f a c t o r s the Board has stated that the f a c t o r of c o n t r o l w i l l be of p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e J 1 and that i n every case the (^1) s . l ( l ) "employee" means a person employed by an employer, and includes a person engaged i n p o l i c e duties, and a dependent contractor included i n an appropriate bargaining u n i t under s e c t i o n 48, but does not include a person who, i n the opinion of the board, • : ( i ) i s employed f o r the primary purpose of e x e r c i s i n g management functions over other employees; or ( i i ) i s employed i n a c o n f i d e n t i a l capacity i n matters r e l a t i n g to labour r e l a t i o n s ; or ( i i i ) i s a teacher as defined i n the P u b l i c Schools Act; (42) P a c i f i c North Coast Native Cooperative A s s o c i a t i o n  and the B r i t i s h Columbia Council of United Fishermen and A l l i e d Workers Union and Native Brotherhood of B r i t i s h Columbia T1976] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 433 at p. 436, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 52/76; see also H o s p i t a l Employees' Union Local 180 and  Cranbrook and D i s t r i c t H o s p i t a l and S e l k i r k College [1975] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 42, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 128/74. (43) H o s p i t a l Employees' Union, Local ISO and the College  of New Caledonia and Prince George Regional H o s p i t a l B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 24/74. - 71 -question of whether the persons being considered are subject to the e v i l s the statute was designed to eradicate (the (44) statutory purpose test) must be answered. The d e f i n i t i o n of employee also s p e c i f i c a l l y (45) excludes some persons from coverage. Of these exclu-sions, those r e l a t i n g to persons exe r c i s i n g managerial functions and persons employed i n a c o n f i d e n t i a l capacity i n matters pertaining to labour r e l a t i o n s , have been of p a r t i c u l a r importance. In Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of (46) -Burnaby ' the Board outlined the approach i t would take to both these exclusions paying p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to statutory purpose of such exclusions. Generally i t can be said that the managerial exclusion applies to those who exercise the true i n d i c i a of management as opposed to mere (47) supervision '' , and whose employment i s f o r the primary (44) H o s p i t a l Employees' Union, Local 180 and Cranbrook  and D i s t r i c t Hospital and S e l k i r k College, supra, footnote 42; St. Paul's Hos p i t a l and P r o f e s s i o n a l  Association of Residents and Interns [1976] 2 Canad-ian L.R.B.R. 161, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 43/76. (45) supra, footnote 41. (46) Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Burnaby and Canadian  Union of Public Employees. Local 23 f19741 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 1, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1/74. (47) The Hospital Employees' Union, Local 180 and St.  Vincents Hospital {1974] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 363» B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 55/7^ . - 72 -purpose of e x e r c i s i n g those management powers over other (48) employees v . Persons sought to he excluded because they are employed i n a c o n f i d e n t i a l capacity i n matters r e l a t i n g to labour r e l a t i o n s must have more than just simple access to such information. To be employed i n such a capacity, the connection to c o n f i d e n t i a l matters must be e s s e n t i a l (La) to the job being performed. • I t should also be noted that the Board'has rejected the argument that there are groups of employees f o r whom the regime of c o l l e c t i v e .bargaining i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y inappropriate. To recognize t h i s type of claim would be to add an exclusion to the d e f i n i t i o n and the Board does not have the power to do this.^°> The p o l i c y and objectives of the Code are major f a c t o r s i n determining who i s the employer, j u s t as they were i n determining employee status. However, (48) This requirment i s u s u a l l y considered i n conjunction with the nature of the enterprise: see, The Faculty  Association of Vancouver C i t y College (Langara) and  Vancouver C i t y College [1974] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 298, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 6 0 / 7 4 ; V i c t o r i a General  Hospital and Health Sciences Association [ 1 9 7 5 ] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 3 4 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 3 1 / 7 5 -( 4 9 ) W.S. Tyler Co. of Canada Limited and United S t e e l -workers of America, Local 2 6 5 5 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 6 / 7 4 . ( 5 0 ) International Association of Machinists and Aerospace  Workers, Lodge 18 57 and Dominion (Vancouver) Moters Ltd.  and R e t a i l , Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1 0 2 / 7 4 . - 73 -the determination of who i s the employer must preceed the answering of questions concerning employee status f o r the Board confines i t s e l f to the subject matter of the a p p l i c -ation. I t cannot determine employee status at large, but ( 51) only v i s - a - v i s the named employer. w ' The Board w i l l consider the nexus between the employees and the person named i n the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n - ^ and w i l l consider the t r a d i t i o n a l i n d i c i a of the employer/employee ( 53) r e l a t i o n s h i p along with the p o l i c y of the Code w-". Again i t i s the cumulative e f f e c t of these considerations which w i l l be determinative. D. Appropriateness Under the Labour Code I - The General P o l i c y In every dispute r e l a t i n g to an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n , there i s a fundamental dilemma, an inherent (51) Labour Relations Board and Attorney General f o r  B r i t i s h Columbia et a l . v. Trader's Service Ltd. (1958) 15 D.L.R. (2d) 305 (S.C.C.). (52) E. Ramage Construction Ltd. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 27 Locals [1975J 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 160, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 28/75. (53) P a c i f i c North Coast Native Cooperative Association and  B.C. Council of United Fishermen and A l l i e d Workers  Union and Native Brotherhood of B r i t i s h Columbia, supra, footnote 42. - 74 -tension which emanates from two d i f f e r e n t purposes which a unit d e s c r i p t i o n may serve. F i r s t , the unit i s used to decide the constituency i n which majority support must he attained by an applicant trade-union. Secondly, a f t e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n , that u n i t d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l have considerable influence i n deciding the future structure of bargaining. Therefore, every a p p l i c a t i o n involves an assessment of how the tension between these two uses w i l l be resolved. Each assessment w i l l have a cost; e i t h e r the r i g h t s of employees to group into units of t h e i r own determination or the structure of bargaining w i l l s u f f e r . In B r i t i s h Columbia, the tension between these two uses was resolved by the de c i s i o n i n Insurance Corporation of B r i t i s h Colum-( 54) bia. ^ ' Here the Board established a p o l i c y i n favour of large integrated u n i t s , gave reasons underlying t h i s p o l i c y and commented on the e f f e c t s of previous Canadian p o l i c y i n t h i s area. The creation of such a r e a d i l y observable standard f o r appropriate units was an unprecedented step i n Canadian labour r e l a t i o n s . ( 5 4 ) Insurance Corporation of B r i t i s h Columbia and Canadian  Union of Pub l i c Employees Local 1 6 9 5 and Office and  Technical Employees/ Union, Local 3 7 8 and B r i t i s h  Columbia Government Employees' Union and Miscellaneous  Workers', Wholesale and R e t a i l Delivery Drivers' and  Helpers' Union, Teamsters Local 3 51, [ 1 9 7 4 ] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 4 0 3 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 6 3 / 7 4 . - 75 -Before enbarking on an analysis of t h i s decision, reference should he made to a unique feature of the Labour Code. Section 27 makes s p e c i f i c reference to the objects and p o l i c i e s which are to guide the Board i n i t s determin-ations. s.27(l) The board may exercise the powers and s h a l l perform the duties conferred or imposed upon i t under t h i s Act i n accordance with the following purposes and objectives; (a) promoting e f f e c t i v e i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s i n the i n t e r e s t s of achieving and maintaining good working conditions and the well-being of the pub l i c ; (b) encouraging the p r a c t i c e and procedure of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining between employers and trade-unions as the f r e e l y chosen represent-atives of employees; (c) promoting conditions favourable to the orderly and constructive settlement of disputes between employers and employees and between employers and trade-unions as the f r e e l y chosen repres-entatives of employees; (d) securing and maintaining i n d u s t r i a l peace, and f u r t h e r i n g harmonious r e l a t i o n s between employers and employees. The Board, having exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine the ( 55) appropriateness of a u n i t , must take account of these objects and p o l i c i e s i n that determination. This i s an important d i s t i n c t i o n f o r , as we saw i n a previous chapter ^ the well-being of the p u b l i c and the securing and maintaining of i n d u s t r i a l peace were considerations implied from the words (55) s . 3 M O ( i ) . (56) supra, Chapter I I , Part B. - 76 -of the statute. ( 57) The Insurance Corporation of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a W f ' case presented an i d e a l s i t u a t i o n f o r the Board to enunciate i t s p o l i c y regarding appropriateness. The Corporation was formed to implement government p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f i e l d of insurance and i t was predicted that i t would eventually employ 1600 persons i n the province, 1000 of these employees concentrated i n one l o c a t i o n i n Vancouver. Trade unions were understandably anxious to organize an enterprise employing so many and the Board was confronted with three a p p l i c a t -ions f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r employees of d i f f e r e n t job des-c r i p t i o n s . A fourth trade union requested that i t s name appear on the b a l l e t i n any representation vote proceed-ings. This case presented a f a c t u a l pattern i n which there was possible fragmentation of the employees of one employer, an opportunity to assess community of i n t e r e s t of applicant segments of those employees, and a s i t u a t i o n where there was no previous bargaining h i s t o r y . The Board outlined the previous p o l i c i e s of un i t determination and indicated that i t found these lack-ing, saying: (57) supra, footnote 5^ . - 77 -". . . . Once an appropriate unit has been s e t t l e d and c o l l e c t i v e bargaining has begun, a strong presumption e x i s t s against changing i t . As new unions come i n to organize re-maining segments of the employees, t h e i r c e r t i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be erected around the o r i g i n a l one. The r e s u l t i s often a chaotic patchwork of bargaining units d i v i d i n g up the employees of one employer, a s i t u a t i o n which i t i s almost impossible to r a t i o n a l -ize l a t e r on. There are some instances of that occurring under previous Labour Rel-ations Act and t h i s Board i s not going to allow that experience to be repeated under the Code." ( 5 8 ) I t indicated that there i s always a good case to be made fo r a u n i t comprised of a l l the employees of an employer and t h i s p o l i c y of large integrated units would underlie ( 59) unit determination under the Code. J 7 ' (58) supra, footnote 5^ at p .4o6. see also; Simon Fraser  U n i v e r s i t y and International A l l i a n c e of T h e a t r i c a l  Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators  of the United States and Canada, Local•118 and S t a f f  Association of Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y and Association  of U n i v e r s i t y and College Employees, Local No.2 (S.F.U.) [1974] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 5 2 5 ; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 118/74. (59) This p o l i c y has been stressed i n subsequent cases: see The Bridge, Young Women's C h r i s t i a n Association  and C i t y of Vancouver and International Union of Oper-ating Engineers, Local No.882 and Vancouver Municipal  and Regional Employees' Union, [1975] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 2 5 3 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 38/75; Chimo Structures  Ltd. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices  of Plumbing and P i p e f i t t i n g Industry of United States  and Canada, Local 170 and United Brotherhood of Carp-enters and Joiners of America, Local 1928, CI976] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 373, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 5 / 7 6 ; Boston Bar Lumber and Timber Workers' Association Local 1-367, [1976]1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 380, B.C.L.R.B. Decis-ion No. 2 3 / 7 6 . - 78 -The reasons why large integrated u n i t s are to he the p r e f e r r e d v e h i c l e f o r e x e r c i s i n g bargaining r i g h t s can be. best expressed i n the language of the d e c i s i o n i t s e l f : The simplest reason favouring one o v e r a l l u n i t i s a dministrative e f f i c i e n c y and convenience i n : bargaining. A l l other things being equal, i t / i s preferable to have only one set of negotiations going on, rather than spreading management e f f o r t s among two or three or even more units.... A second administrative f a c t o r , t h i s one c l e a r l y i n the i n t e r e s t of both employer and employee, i s the matter of l a t e r a l m o b i l i t y . The presence of s e v e r a l bargaining u n i t s , each with t h e i r own s e n i o r i t y l i s t s and d i f f e r e n t contract b e n e f i t s , i s an obstacle i n the way of an employee's t r a n s f e r or promotion out of the o r i g i n a l u n i t i n t o which he was h i r e d . This l i m i t s the m o b i l i t y of the employee job of the employee who wants to improve hi s job p o s i t i o n through promotion to a p o s i t i o n which has come open i n another d i v i s i o n . I t a l s o r e s t r i c t s management's range of s e l e c t i o n among q u a l i f i e d persons to f i l l a job. The existence of a s i n g l e bargaining u n i t f a c i l i t a t e s the achievement of a common framework of employment conditions -vacations, statutory holidays, overtime, insurance scheme, pension plan, and so on.... Another f a c t o r favouring a s i n g l e large u n i t i s the objective of i n d u s t r i a l s t a b i l i t y . I f there i s one union and one set of negot-i a t i o n s , then the r i s k of s t r i k e s has to be l e s s than i f there are several unions negot-i a t i n g separately. I f there are two or more unit s representing employees i n an operation" which i s f u n c t i o n a l l y integrated, then i f one u n i t goes on s t r i k e , i t w i l l put the employ-ees i n the other u n i t out of work as well (and even i f they have nothing to gain from a s t r i k e "because they have already signed t h e i r agreement) " (60) These represent the Board's a n a l y s i s of how the p o l i c y and objectives o u t l i n e d i n s . 2 7 are best r e f l e c t e d i n an unexceptional a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n . As an a t t -empt to take i n t o account the concerns of the p u b l i c , the employee and the employer, they are not h e a v i l y weighted i n favour of any p a r t i c u l a r party. The reasons r e l a t i n g to l a t e r a l m o b i l i t y and the achievement of a common framework of employment conditions are d i r e c t e d to employee concerns. Administrative e f f i c i e n c y and con-venience favour the employer. The p u b l i c ' s concerns are manifested i n the objective of i n d u s t r i a l s t a b i l i t y . This case also r e j e c t e d once and f o r a l l the argument that employee wishes should define the area of a u n i t . The Board reasoned that the adoption of t h i s f a c t o r as the p r i n c i p l e of u n i t determination would be an abdica-ion of t h e i r duties under the statute and lead to undue p r o l i f e r a t i o n of bargaining u n i t s . ; Later cases have (60) supra, footnote 54 at pp . 4 o 8 - 4 0 9 ; pp.9-12. (61) i b i d . , at p . 4 o 6 ; pp.5-6 . - 80 -indicated that the Board w i l l also not be bound by j u r i s d i c t i o n a l agreements between union.^ ' II - Public Sector Units Following the recommendations of the Higgins Report ^', preferance f o r large integrated units becomes a presumption when an a p p l i c a t i o n concerns a pu b l i c sector employer. This presumption operates even when the a p p l i -cant i s a c r a f t union seeking i t s usual uni t d e s c r i p t i o n ^ ^ and i s e s p e c i a l l y strong when there i s no previous c o l l e c t -ive bargaining h i s t o r y . k ->) This p o l i c y was f i r m l y entrench-ed i n the decision i n B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry C o r p o r a t i o n ^ ^ (62) see Chimo Structures Ltd., supra, footnote 59-(63) Higgins, Making Bargaining Work i n B r i t i s h Columbia's Public Sector. (1972) (64) Workmen's Compensation Board and Workmen's Compensation  Board Employees' Union and Health Sciences Association. 0-974] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 413, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.67/74; see also, Canadian Union of Publ i c Employees, Local 1570  and Town of Smithers B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.80/74, Board of School Trustees of School D i v i s i o n .No.65(Cowichan)  and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 606 TNaniamo'and D i s t r i c t s School Boards and Office Employ-ees' Union) B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 120/74. (65) supra, footnote 54, at p.412; p.17; see also, Canadian  Union of Public Employees and Town of Smithers B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 80/74. (66) B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry Corporation and B r i t i s h Columbia  Government Employees Union and B.C.G.E.U. - Marine Serv-ic e s - Licensed Component and B.C. Ferry and Marine Work-ers Union and Canadian Merchant Service Guild 11977] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 526; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 25/77. - 81 -where, a f t e r comment on previous decisions regarding p u b l i c sector u n i t s , i t was stated! "The thread running through each of these decisions i n the l a s t three years i s a common p o l i c y pursued by t h i s Labour Board whenever i t i s c a l l e d upon to make a judgement about the future bargaining structure f o r an e s s e n t i a l p u b l i c s e r v i c e : the need to guard against fragmentation of the employees among more than one bargaining u n i t , with the l a t e n t p o t e n t i a l which that would have f o r competative bargaining and sequential shutdown of the e s s e n t i a l s e r v i c e . We are simply not prepared to d i l u t e that p o l i c y by allowing exceptions i n any but the most compelling of c a s e s . " ( 6 7 ) The presumption, although here formulated i n terms of u n i t s , i s also compelling where there i s an issue as to whether the Board should c e r t i f y another union where there are already several e x i s t i n g c o l l e c t i v e bargaining r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I I I - Exception to the General P o l i c y (i ) Admission to the C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining Regime The Insurance Corporation of B r i t i s h Columbia case showed that the Board has r e a l i z e d that i t s p o l i c y of large integrated u n i t s could, i f r i g i d l y adhered to, c o n f l i c t ( 6 7 ) supra, at p . 5 4 3 ; at p . 3 2 . ( 6 8 ) see B r i t i s h Columbia. Hydro and Power Authority and  Canadian Merchant Service G u i l d and Canadian Bro- therhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, L o c a l No. 400 and Amalgamated T r a n s i t Union, D i v i s i o n  101-134 and Management of P r o f e s s i o n a l Employees  Society. ' L C / R ^ ^ — ,'.\ ( 6 9 ) supra, footnote 5 4 . - 82 -with the Section 27 d i r e c t i o n to encourage the p r a c t i s e and procedure of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. In some instances, the p o l i c y i n favour of large units w i l l have to be sac-r i f i c e d i n order that c o l l e c t i v e bargaining can commence. One such instance was outlined i n t h i s case: "There are c e r t a i n types of employees who are t r a d i t i o n a l l y d i f f i c u l t to organize and there are some employers who are w i l l i n g to e x p l o i t the f a c t and stimulate opposition to a representation campaign. I f , notwithstanding these obstacles, a group of employees within a viable u n i t wishes to have a union repre-sent them, t h i s Board w i l l exercise i t s d i s -c r e t i o n i n order to get c o l l e c t i v e bargaining under way. In that kind of s i t u a t i o n , i t makes no sense to s t i c k r i g i d l y to a con-ception of the best bargaining u n i t i n the long term, when the e f f e c t of that attitude i s to abort the representation e f f o r t from the ou t s e t . " ( 7 0 ) However, although t h i s case indicated that the Board was w i l l i n g to depart from the large u n i t p o l i c y , i t did not present a method which would reconcile the c o n f l i c t bet-ween large units and the encouagement of c o l l e c t i v e bar-gaining . The method chosen to meet t h i s c o n f l i c t was outlined (71) i n woodward 'Stores (Vancouver) L i i a i t e d v \ ' . The employer ( 7 0 ) supra, at p.407; p.8. (71) Woodward Stores (Vancouver) Limited and Graphic Arts  International Union, Local 120 and Bakery and Con-fectionary Workers International Union of America, Local 468 [19751 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 114, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 129/74. - 83 -was opposing the a p p l i c a t i o n s of two unions a l l e g i n g that the units being sought were inappropriate. The company r e l i e d on the Board's previous statements of a p o l i c y against departmental fragmentation. The unions cautioned that t r y i n g to s e t t l e the bargaining s t r u c t -ure too f a r into the future would mean that c o l l e c t i v e bargaining would never get o f f the ground at Woodwards. The Board stated that t h i s s i t u a t i o n f e l l squarely with-i n the caveat to i t s p o l i c y of large integrated u n i t s . Their d e c i s i o n was to c e r t i f y the respective u n i t s and a two-phase approach was sketched to s a t i s f y the con-f l i c t s of p o l i c y , In the f i r s t phase, the Board indicated that i t was concerned that c o l l e c t i v e bargaining be a v a i l a b l e to those employees who, by reason of t h e i r own s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s , have agreed on a bargaining representative: "We w i l l not r e j e c t a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r small bargaining u n i t s on the basis that a large u n i t i s a more r a t i o n a l structure f o r hypo-t h e t i c a l c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i n the d i s t a n t future, where the r e s u l t w i l l be the denial of actual bargaining r i g h t s now."(72) However, t h i s statements of p o l i c y was not absolute f o r ; '"Xhat does not mean that- the Board w i l l _Zc_arY_e__c:ui- _"t°^ally a r t i f i c i a l u n its, based (72) i b i d . , p.11?, p.9-- 84 -s o l e l y on the extent of organization hy the union (and s u f f i c i e n t to give the l a t t e r a majority). We w i l l require some reasonably coherent and defensible bound-a r i e s around the u n i t over and above the e x i s t i n g , momentary preference of the employees."(73) The Board outlined the second phase of t h i s process, which would be d i r e c t e d to the f u l f i l l m e n t of the p o l i c y outlined i n Insurance Corporation of B r i t i s h (7k) Columbia. ' I t i s b a s i c a l l y the imposition of a time requirement i n order f o r the Board to be able to ascert-ain whether i t s concerns about a "chaotic patchwork" of c e r t i f i c a t i o n s are being r e a l i z e d : " l i f t e r a time, rather than creating new bargaining u n i t s , we w i l l consider that the e x i s t i n g units must be enlarged or merged and a l l of those employees represented by one 'trade union' (which could be a council of unions v o l u n t a r i l y agreed to or imposed by the Board under s.57 of the Code). We do not i n t e r p r e t the Labour Code as g i v i n g trade-unions 'property r i g h t s ' i n the continued existence of c e r t i f i c a t i o n s or c o l l e c t i v e agreements where the u n i t upon which they depend no longer appears appropriate."(75) The imposition of t h i s time requirement i s a new approach i n Canadian labour r e l a t i o n s . The previous Canadian case law seemed to imply that the promotion of (73) i b i d . , p.119, P-9-(7k) supra, footnote 5k. (75) supra, footnote 6k, at p.120, p.10. - 85 -c o l l e c t i v e bargaining procedures by allowing the c e r t i f i -cation of small units l e d i n e l u c t a b l y to a c o n f l i c t with the promotion of i n d u s t r i a l harmony. The B.C. Board has shown that t h i s i s not the case, the two d i f f e r e n t object-ives can be met merely by considering them at two d i f f e r -ent points on a continuum. The requirement that i t must always be possible to draw a r a t i o n a l and defensible l i n e around a u n i t i s an i n d i c a t i o n of the second exception to the Board's general p o l i c y regarding appropriateness. In the work-place, employees are most l i k e l y to d i s t i n g u i s h amongst themselves on the basis of job function and i t seems apparent that a coherent and defensible l i n e around a unit would require that those included i n the u n i t per-form s i m i l a r enough job functions so as to have a commun-i t y of i n t e r e s t . ( i i ) Community of Interest The second exception to the p o l i c y of large integrated units i s more d i f f i c u l t to discern. The ex-ception allowing f o r formation.of small units i n order to fo s t e r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining was based on a s t a t u t o r i l y mandated p o l i c y objective. The second exception i s based on the p r a c t i c a l recognition that i n c e r t a i n instances i t - 86 -i s manifestly impossible to accommodate the c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s of definable work groups within the frame-work of one c o l l e c t i v e agreement. The Board recognized the existence of such t o t a l l y diverse i n t e r e s t s i n the Insurance Corporation of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ^ c a s e saying: "These v i r t u e s of the employer-wide unit are s i g n i f i c a n t , e s p e c i a l l y when considered cum-u l a t i v e l y . However, they are not absolutely compelling. I t i s common to f i n d c e r t i f i c a t -ions granted by t h i s Board where narrower u n i t boundaries are drawn. The usual reason f o r that d e s c r i p t i o n of the appropriate bargaining u n i t i s the Board's judgment about the commun-i t y of i n t e r e s t of the employees. There i s a simple explanation f o r the importance of t h i s f a c t o r . The point of c e r t i f i c a t i o n under the Code i s to secure c o l l e c t i v e bargaining f o r the employees. Accordingly, the group on whose behalf t h i s bargaining i s to be carr-ie d on should include only those categories of employees whose i n t e r e s t s can reasonably be r e f l e c t e d i n one set of negotiations and whose working conditions can be incorporated in t o one document. I f some groups d i f f e r  g r e a t l y i n background, s k i l l s , nature of work, method of payment and so on, i t may prove d i f f -i c u l t to accommodate t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n one  bargaining unit. A t y p i c a l example of t h i s i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between the production employees i n the plant and the salesmen who s e l l t h e i r product. The former w i l l be blue c o l l a r employees, working . • together at one l o c a t i o n , having set hours and being paid by the hour, and e x h i b i t i n g much the same kind of s k i l l s . The salesmen are a white c o l l a r group with very d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s , working i n d i v i d u a l l y out i n the f i e l d , often at i r r e g u l a r hours, and usually paid at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y on a commission basis. Supp-ose a l l of these are included i n one unit. I t (76)- supra, footnote 5 ^ . - 87 -w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to prepare one c o l l e c t i v e agreement whose terms w i l l e s t a b l i s h working conditions appropriate f o r each group (e.g. about hours of work and overtime). The e f f o r t of negotiators to work on both fronts may hamper the achievement of a.settlement f o r e i t h e r group. When an agreement does come, i t may be because the i n t e r e s t s of one group (perhaps the numerically smaller one) are ignored, and the resistance of the l a t t e r w i l l only cause problems during the term of that c o l l e c t i v e agreement. For that reason, the Board normally carves out separate units f o r these groups of employees, because of t h e i r separate communities of interest.(77)" I t i s under the unbrella of t h i s second exception that the Board considers a l l the f a c t o r s which have been of concern to previous Canadian labour r e l a t i o n s boards ( i . e . i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements, nature of work, preserving the freedom of choice of the p a r t i e s ) . However, instead of g i v i n g each of the f a c t o r s a p o s i t i o n i n the framework f o r determining the appropriate unit, the B..C. Board's approach telescopes the f a c t o r s into one concern: comm-unity of i n t e r e s t . Should any i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r be of such s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t that i t destroys the community of i n t e r e s t between groups of employees then the Board has indicated i t s willingness to accommodate t h i s concern "through the -formation of un i t s which contradict i t s p o l i c y preference f o r large integrated unit s . (77) supra, at p.409, p.12. - 88 -There are a number of cases i n which the Board has deviated from i t s general p o l i c y . The most predictable point of departure comes when the Board's in v e s t i g a t i o n s reveal a bargaining h i s t o r y which, i n and of i t s e l f , i s s u f f i c i e n t to create a community of i n t e r e s t . In Cariboo (7R) Memorial Hospital , the Chairman commented on t h i s type of s i t u a t i o n : "In defining and r e - d e f i n i n g appropriate bargaining u n i t s that kind of h i s t o r y i s a l l important. I t indicates the existence of workable r e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst the empl-oyer and both unions and tends to produce an even stronger community of i n t e r e s t among the group of employees than was present on the o r i g i n a l certification."(79) Once again we can see a Section 2 7 p o l i c y objective ( i n d u s t r i a l harmony) taking precedence over the general p o l i c y regarding appropriateness. Thus, a healthy bargain-ing h i s t o r y w i l l defeat an a p p l i c a t i o n to consolidate two units ; ^ 0 ^ a newly formed u n i t w i l l not be allowed to (78) H o s p i t a l Employees Union, Local 180 and Cariboo Memor-i a l Hospital and International Union of Operating Eng-ineers, Local 882 [1974]1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 4l8; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 47/74. (79) i b i d . , at p.421, see also, General Truck Drivers and  Helpers Union, Local No. 31 and Standard Bus Contract-ing Ltd. . B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 22/74; Wood. Wire  and Metal Lathers' International Union, Local 207 and  The P r o v i n c i a l Council of Carpenters and Construction  Labour Relations Association of B.C., B.C.L.R.B. Decis-ion No. 59/74. (80) B.C. Equipment Company Ltd., J.S. Galbraith & Sons Ltd. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local  115, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 56/74. - 89 -operate outside of a poly-party c e r t i f i c a t i o n with a f81 ) successful background; but where the bargaining h i s t o r y of two units shows de facto j o i n t bargaining yet the maintenance of separate c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , the Board w i l l not be reluctant to consolidate the u n i t s . Next to bargaining h i s t o r y , the most important aspect of community of i n t e r e s t s u f f i c i e n t to override the general p o l i c y i s the Board's judgment of the f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n of the employees. The importance of t h i s aspect can be seen i n Woodwards Furniture F a i r Limited,(^3) a decision rendered p r i o r to the formulation of the general (QL) p o l i c y i n I.C.B.C. ' In t h i s case, Vice-Chairman Moore, r e l y i n g on the c r i t e r i a f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n as quoted i n Carrothers " C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining", decided that i t (81) Yarrows Limited and Association of Commercial and  Technical Employees, Local 1711, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 96/74, 1974 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 489. (82) Kinnairds Motor Hotel Co. Ltd. and Beverage Dispensers  and Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 835, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 145/74. • : ~ ( 8 3 ) R e t a i l Clerk's Union, Local 1518 and Woodwards Furn-i t u r e F a i r Limited B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 5/74. ~ (84) supra, footnote 54. ( 8 5 ) Carrothers, " C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining i n Canada" (19 ). These c r i t e r i a were u t i l i z e d by the B.C.L.R.B. p r i o r to the I.C.B.C.decision, i b i d . See also, General Truck  Drivers and Helpers' Union, Local No. 31 and Standard  Bus Contracting Ltd., B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 11/74. - 90 -was not appropriate to put warehouse s t a f f i n a u n i t with o f f i c e and c l e r i c a l s t a f f because of substantial lack of community of i n t e r e s t by v i r t u e of terms of employment. There have been a number of decisions following t h i s (R6") approach, yet none of them provide any f u r t h e r guid-ance as to how great the d i s p a r i t y of i n t e r e s t s must be i n order to overcome the large integrated unit p o l i c y . How-ever, i n B r i t i s h Columbia School Trustees Association  School D i s t r i c t No. 65 (Cowichan) the Board refused to include Teacher's Assistants i n an o f f i c e and c l e r i c a l unit saying: " I t [was") e a s i l y recognizable that the nature of the work performed, the conditions of employment and the s k i l l s of the employees are quite d i s s i m i l a r to*those / Q Q \ _ of o f f i c e and c l e r i c a l employees". ' This i n d i c a t e s that (86) Wagner Engineering Ltd. and Marine Workers & B o i l e r - makers I n d u s t r i a l Union, Local No. 1, B.C.L.R.B. Dec-i s i o n No. 98/74, [1974] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 436; Hayes P a c i f i c Sales and International Union of Oper-ating Engineers, Local 115, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.104/74. (87) B r i t i s h Columbia School Trustees Association, School  D i s t r i c t No. 65 (Cowichan) and Canadian Union of P u b l i c  Employees, Local 606 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 70/74. (88) i b i d . , at p.3- Note that t h i s d ecision was reversed on a reconsideration, Board of School Trustees of  P u b l i c Employees, Local 6o6 (Nanaimo and D i s t r i c t s  School Boards and O f f i c e Employees Union), B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 120/74. However/this r e v e r s a l pivots on the f a c t that the employer i s i n the p u b l i c sector. - 91 -a community of i n t e r e s t a r i s i n g from job function, i f i t i s to be strong enough to overturn the general p o l i c y , must a r i s e from marked d i s s i m i l a r i t y and not merely i n s u b s t a n t i a l differences. I t also s a c r i f i c e s some of the f a c t o r s which w i l l be looked at i n determining the extent of f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n . The extent of f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n r e l a t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y ' t o job function and a community of i n t e r e s t between a group of employees i s not destroyed by the presence of d i f f e r e n t motivations among employees of the same job function. There i s one very important caveat to the use of job function as the basis f o r separate u n i t s . This comes about when the employer i s a small one with few employees a l l of whom have non-related job functions and therefore no community of i n t e r e s t v i a f u n c t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n . In these cases, following the r a t i o n a l e of the f i r s t exception to the general p o l i c y , the Board opts f o r allowing c o l l e c t -ive bargaining to put down roots. The Board, i n W.S. Tyler  Company of Canada L i m i t e d ^ 0 ' 1 recognized the dangers of placing those with d i f f e r e n t job functions i n t o a single u n i t , saying: ( 8 9 ) White Spot Limited and Canadian Food and Associated  Services Union, Local No. 1 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 8 3 / 7 4 . ( 9 0 ) W.S.Tyler Company of Canada Limited and United S t e e l - workers of America, Local 2 6 5 5 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 3 1 / 7 4 . This was a reconsideration of B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 6 / 7 4 . - 92 -"To the extent that there are r a d i c a l d i f f e r -ences i n functions, s k i l l s , methods of pay, working conditions, and so on, between groups of employees whose terms of employment must be expressed i n one c o l l e c t i v e agreement, then stable and successful c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i s endangered."(91) However, these fears must be kept i n proportion and: "... Even more important than a community of i n t e r e s t i s the v i a b i l i t y of c o l l e c t i v e bar-gaining i t s e l f . . . . The Board simply i s not prepared to s p l i n t e r that u n i t even fu r t h e r i n the p u r s u i t of some abstract i d e a l of a common work s i t u a t i o n among a l l those who are part of the same u n i t . " ( 9 2 ) Therefore, c o l l e c t i v e bargaining w i l l not be denied to employees of the small employer simply because none have a community of i n t e r e s t with any of the others. The c l e a r e s t instances of t h i s exception come when there i s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a u n i t i n a workplace where there are several already e x i s t i n g c o l l e c t i v e bar-(93) gaining r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In St. Pauls H o s p i t a l , K 7 J I an a p p l i c a t i o n was considered from an a s s o c i a t i o n representing interns and residents. The h o s p i t a l had agreements with four other trade-unions, therefore a concern was expressed (91) i b i d . , at p.2. (92) i b i d . , at p.3« See also, International Brotherhood  of E l e c t r i c a l Workers, Local 213 and O l i v e t t i Canada  Ltd. C1975J 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 6 0 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 113/74. (93) St. Pauls Hospital and P r o f e s s i o n a l Association of  Residents and Interns 11976] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. l6l, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. ^ 3 / 7 6 . - 93 -about the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of bargining agents. However, because the applicant a s s o c i a t i o n had negotiated on behalf of residents and interns f o r f i v e years previously and because the employees concerned exercised d i s t i n c t i v e provessional s k i l l s , the Board found the u n i t to be appropriate saying: "... i t would be u n f a i r to deny members of [the association] a u n i t i n which they could engage i n c o l l e c t i v e bargaining now, i n pur-s u i t of an i d e a l all-employee u n i t which i s some distance i n the future f o r B.C. ho s p i t a l s But because of the respective h i s t o r i e s of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining, c o l l e c t i v e agree-ments and entrenced bargaining agents f o r each such groups, the proper vehicle f o r that enquiry and possible a c t i o n i s 2 . 5 7 of the Labour Code . . . " ( 9 4 ) I t should be emphasized that t h i s type of accomodation w i l l only occur when the Board f e e l s that i t i s desirable that there be a divergence i n c o l l e c t i v e (QK) bargaining p o l i c i e s within one workplace. ^' In the majority of cases the Board w i l l not adopt the tack of ( 9 4 ) i b i d . , at p. 1 7 9 . ( 9 5 ) see B r i t i s h Columbia Railway Company and Canadian  Association of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and A l l i e d  Workers et a l . [ 1 9 7 7 ] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 3 0 9 . B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 8 9 / 7 6 ; Okanagan Telephone  Company and Society of Telephone Engineers and Man-agers and Federation of Telephone Workers of B r i t i s h Columbia [ 1 9 7 7 ] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. ; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.6 6 / 7 7 . - 94 -"locking the ham door" only a f t e r the harm has been done. ( 9 6> F i n a l l y , i t has been made abundantly cl e a r that employee desires w i l l not be determinative of the approp-r i a t e u n i t . They are only one f a c t o r i n assessing community of i n t e r e s t . The Board has repeatedly stated that they w i l l not l e t employees arrogate to themselves the task of deter-mining the appropriate unit. That i s a task the Code has, by the operation of s.42, given e x c l u s i v e l y to the Board. E. Unit Determination Under Special Circumstances I - Special Interest Units In the l a s t decade or so there has been a loosen-ing of the r e s t r i c t i v e requirements f o r entrance to the c o l l e c t i v e bargaining regime. Many workers, who i n the (96) see B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry Corporation, supra, foot-note 66. (97) Insurance Corporation of B r i t i s h Columbia, supra footnote 54 at p . 4 o 6 - 4 0 7 ; B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry  Corporation; supra, footnote 66; B r i t i s h Columbia  Hydro and Power Authority, supra, footnote 68; Okanagan Telephone Company and Society of Telephone  Engineers and Managers and Federation of Telephone  Workers of B r i t i s h Columbia. [1977] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R.; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 66/77. - 95 -past were not given the right to bargain collectively, may now seek to form trade unions. However, in many instances, those who are recent recipients of the right to bargain collectively wish to do so only within their own parochial confines or they seek special accomodation where their possible unit description conflicts with a pre-existing unit. This has created a new area for labour relations boards to consider: the conflict between exist-ing policies of appropriateness and new special interest units. (i) Craft or Professional Units: The concept of bar-gaining units based soley on the particular s k i l l s of the employees in the proposed unit i s a holdover from the early history of trade unions. While craft unions were the f i r s t unions, they developed in an era when production methods favored the sk i l l e d workman to a much greater extent than do today's. With the introduction, of "assem-bly-line" methods of production into a great number of today's industries, the craft union approach has waned in the industrial setting. However, i t s t i l l retains a v i t a l presence in the construction industry. Section kl of the Code acknowledges the decreasing importance of the craft unit approach to unit determination - 96 -by directing, in Section 41(1), that the craft unit i s an appropriate unit only " i f the group i s otherwise an approp-riate bargaining u n i t . " ^ ^ In Woodward Stores (Vancouver) (99) Ltd. i t was pointed out: "By contrast with some other jurisdictions (such as Ontario), the fact that an application satisfies the requirements of craft status does not make ce r t i f i c a t i o n mandatory in B.C. The Board must s t i l l find that the group i s 'otherwise an appropriate bargaining unit' and that points to the same inquiry which must be undertaken under Section 42 for a l l other applications At best the specific language of Section 4l expresses a l e g i s l a t -ive mood favorable to craft organizations, rather than a statutory directive mandating craft certification.(100) Further evidence that the general policy on appropriateness is to supercede the craft unit approach, can be seen in the language of s.4l(2). Here, the Legislative has made i t quite clear that a craft unit i s subject to the exigencies of a "raid" as i s any other unit. Their boundaries are not inviolable. Craft units s t i l l predominate in the construction industry, although the opinion has been expressed that, because of the effects of fragmentation, there i s a need (98) s . 4 l ( l ) . (99) supra, footnote 71. (100) ib i d . , at p. , see also, B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry  Corporation, supra, footnote 66. - 97 -(101) to consolidate bargaining units i n that industry. v ' The reason why they are s t i l l v iable i n t h i s industry r e l a t e s more to the nature of that industry than to the c r a f t u n i t concept i t s e l f . In Lega Fabricating; Colleg-( 1 0 2 ) late Sports v ' the Board explained: "... the l o g i c of large plant-wide units i s persuasive only i n the context of a sedentary work force In the construc-t i o n industry m u l t i - u n i t work forces are complimented by multi-employer d i v i s i o n s of work and do not create the p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t which l e d t h i s Board to espouse a plant-wide u n i t p o l i c y i n the i n d u s t r i a l sector. At the same time, c r a f t organization enables the trade-union movement to "move with" an employer from p r o j e c t to p r o j e c t . " ( 1 0 3 ) (104) The Lega Fabricating; Collegiate Sports ' case concerned two employees who were not engaged i n the con-s t r u c t i o n industry themselves, but who employed b u i l d i n g trades personnel to undertake a construction p r o j e c t f o r (101) see, Wood, Wire and Metal Lather's International Union  and B r i t i s h Columbia Council of Carpenters, 27 Locals and Construction Labour Relations Association of B r i t i s h Columbia [1976] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 252. B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 9/76. (102) Lega F a b r i c a t i n g and International Brotherhood of,  Boilermakers', Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers  and Helpers, Lodge 3 5 9 ; C o l l e g i a t e Sports Ltd. and  United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 452, [19771 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 3 8 9 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 5/77. ( 1 0 3 ) i b i d . , at p. 3 9 2 , at p. 7-(104) i b i d . - 98 -them. Lega employed a Boilermaker to work on a p r o j e c t on the grounds of a favored customer and Collegiate emp-loyed a carpenter to do some renovations i n t h e i r store i n a shopping mall. Both the trade unions applied and were c e r t i f i e d . Both employers appealed a l l e g i n g that due to the nature of t h e i r operations, c r a f t c e r t i f i c a t i o n was inappropriate. The Board refused to overturn the B o i l e r -maker's c e r t i f i c a t i o n at Lega saying that when an employer enters a f i e l d of work where t r a d i t i o n a l patterns of org-anization are unique and d i f f e r e n t than those p r e v a i l i n g i n h i s normal f i e l d of endeavor then he must he prepared to accept those patterns. The Carpenter's c e r t i f i c a t i o n at C o l l e g i a t e was overturned because t h i s employer did not transport i t s endeavors into a c r a f t sector, but rather had "undertaken construction work i n a m i l i e u devoid of the organization problems which are one of the r a t i o n a l e of c r a f t c e r t i f i c a t i o n . »(10-5) These instances are complimented by the dec-i s i o n i n Chimo Structures L t d . w h e r e the s i t u a t i o n (105) i b i d . , at p.393. at p.9-(106) Chimo Structures Ltd. and the United Association of  Jounrneymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-f i t t i n g Industry of the United States and Canada, Local  1928 V1976] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 373> B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 5/76. - 99 -was reversed; a c r a f t u n i t proposed i n an i n d u s t r i a l s etting. Here, the Plumbers were attempting to maintain a c r a f t u n i t i n the modular structures industry. Again, the Board was sen s i t i v e to the possible e f f e c t s of f r a g -mentation of an i n d u s t r i a l workforce and refused the app-l i c a t i o n . They commented that the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of units i n the construction industry was an exception to general p o l i c y with respect to appropriateness only because of i t s p e c u l i a r h i s t o r i c a l development and methods f o r r e s o l v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n a l disputes. The r e s t r i c t i o n of c r a f t units has not ju s t centered around disputes between the construction and i n d u s t r i a l sectors. In B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry Corporation the l i c e n s e d o f f i c e r s i n the f e r r y system made the argument that they were a d i s t i n c t i v e c r a f t u n i t and thus presumpt-i v e l y e n t i t l e d to t h e i r own unit. The Board s p e c i f i e d that the language of Section 41 did not give presumptive status to c r a f t union and found the proposed l i c e n s e d o f f i c e r u n i t to be not an otherwise appropriate unit. (107) For comments on Board p o l i c y i n t h i s area; see, Columbia B i t h u l i t h i c Ltd. and Teamsters Local Union  213 and B r i t i s h Columbia Road Builders Association  and The Construction and General Labourers Union, Locals 602,1070 and 1093 and Tunnel and Rock Workers  Local Union 168.B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 56/74; Wood, Wire and Metal Lather's International Union, supra, footnote 100; Chimo Structures, supra, foot-note 1 0 5 . (108) supra, footnote 66. - 100 -The scope of the proposed u n i t was not wide enough and to c e r t i f y a small u n i t under the guise of a c r a f t u n i t would he to encourage other d i s t i n c t c r a f t s to group together, thus fragmenting the workforce. One f i n a l comment; Section 41 r e f e r s to the " c r a f t or pr o f e s s i o n a l u n i t " . The Board has yet to he confronted with an a p p l i c a t i o n from a d i s t i n c t p r o f e s s i o n a l group. They have, however, indicated that Section 47 may be a more appropriate section to be u t i l i z e d by groups of t h i s (109) kind. In Thasis Company Limited 7 1 the Board considered a group of pro f e s s i o n a l employees who exercised no super-vi s o r y powers. They commented: "As a general p r i n c i p l e we f e e l that such employ-ees should -be included within a u n i t .of j u n i o r management or supervisory employees. Although they seldom, i f ever, exercise supervisory functions they i n v a r i a b l y have terms of r e f -erence more analogous to the supervisory per-sonnel i f f o r no other reason than they too have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been excluded from the bargaining u n i t and treated as part of the 'management' cadfte by t h e i r employer. A l -though they have a d i s t i n c t community of i n t e r -est by vi r t u e of t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l functions, we are not prepared to consider yet another bargaining u n i t f o r such employees."(110) (109) Thasis Company Limited, Gold River D i v i s i o n and the  Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 12 11977]2 Canadian L.R.B.R., B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.. 46/77. (110) i b i d . , at p. , at p.23. - 101 -( i l ) Supervisory Units: Section 47 i s an attempt to respond to what one panel r e f e r r e d to as, "a growing chorus c a l l i n g f o r the extension of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining (111) at l e a s t to the lower echelons of management." ' As an attempt to accomodate a hithe r t o ignored group by s t i p u l a t i n g a d i s t i n c t f a c t o r which must be taken into account i n determining the appropriate bargaining unit, i t comes into c o n f l i c t with the Board's expressed prefer-ence f o r large u n i t s . This i s much the same c o n f l i c t that (112) presented i t s e l f with c r a f t u n i t s . ' Some of the Board's more recent decisions have attempted to resolve that con-f l i c t by s e t t i n g guidelines f o r the operation of the section. The section recognizes that supervisors are employees by i t s terms of reference which r e f e r to (113) — "employees who supervise other employees". •Jl In :Tahsis. (114) Company Limited^ ' the section was explained as: "... providing] e x p l i c i t recognition of the f a c t that supervisory personnel may be employees under the Code, and at the same time acknowleges that (111) Royal Inland H o s p i t a l and The Hospital Employees' Union, Local No. 180. [1977] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 466, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 11/77-(112) As was noted i n B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry Corporation, supra, footnote 66. ( 1 1 3 ) s.47(a). (114) Tahsis Company Limited, Gold River D i v i s i o n and The  Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada, Local 12 [1977] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 46/77-- 102 -there may be circumstances when i t i s more appropriate to separate supervisors from other employees."(115) I t also contemplates the mixing of supervisors and the employees they supervise i n the same unit.* ' The deliberate c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of a supervisor as an "employee" i s meant to emphasize that a supervisor i s not a manager; he does not have the magnitude of c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t with employees that a manager has, f o r i f he did he could . . (117) not a v a i l himself of the provisions of the Code. , J A dilemma ar i s e s when the Board i s required to determine the extent of that c o n f l i c t and decide whether i t merits a separate u n i t i n the face of the general p o l i c y on approp-riateness. (115) i b i d . , at p. (116) see Saanieh Poli c e Association and Board of Commiss-ioners of P o l i c e of the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of  Saanieh B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 73/76. Marine Workers' and Boilermakers' I n d u s t r i a l Union, Local No.l and  United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Joiners and Boat-bu i l d e r s of America, Local 506 and Vito Steel and" Barge Construction Limited [1974] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 109, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.lO/76. Beechwood Construc-t i o n Ltd. and B r i c k l a y e r s , Masons and P l a s t e r e r s Inter-national Union of America, Local No.l B.C.L.R.B. Dec-i s i o n No. 32/77» Association of Commercial and Tech-n i c a l Employees, Local 1711 and Yarrows Limited and  J o i n t Shipyard Conference [1975] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 26, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 22/75-(117) see V i c t o r i a General Ho s p i t a l and Health Sciences  Association U975] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 34, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 31/75-- 103 -The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the p o l i c y i n favour of large units and the supervisory u n i t s t a r t s with the proposition that supervisory employees are not auomatic-a l l y e n t i t l e d to a separate unit. In contrast with Section 41 c r a f t units, t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n has developed from the case law, as Section 47 does not require supervisory u n i t s to he "otherwise appropriate" as Section 41 does. ; To reconcile the large unit p o l i c y with the supervisory_urii't, the Board requires a judgement as to whether the elimin-ation of the c o n f l i c t inherent i n supervisory status out-weighs the advantages of that p o l i c y . Instances where there has been the creation of a separate u n i t follow the pattern of the t y p i c a l exception to the single u n i t doctrine. rards  P(120) (119) The Woodwards Stores^ ' exception i s alluded to i n Tahsis Company "The Code's d i r e c t i o n i n Section 21(1)(b) of the Code to encourage c o l l e c t i v e bargaining necessitates, i n the case of supervisory emp-loyees, a keen s e n s i t i v i t y to the understand-able desires of such employees to associate i n bargaining units which are designed to respond to a d i s t i n c t set of p r i o r i t i e s . Put more simply, i f c o l l e c t i v e bargaining can be made more a t t r a c t i v e to supervisory employees by delineating separate bargaining units f o r such personnel, the Board w i l l not i n s i s t (121) that they be included i n already e x i s t i n g units. ' (118) B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry Corporation, supra, footnote 66; Okanagan Telephone Company, supra, footnote 97• (119) supra, footnote 71. (120) supra, footnote 114. (121) i b i d . , at p. - 104 -One w i l l have to question how much of the l o g i c of t h i s (122) approach has survived recent amendments to the Code v ' which changes the thrust of s.27(l)(h) from "encouraging" c o l l e c t i v e bargaining to imporving the prac t i s e s and pro-cedures of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. The .more important consideration w i l l be whether the supervisors have a d i s t i n c t enough community of i n t e r e s t to j u s t i f y an exception to the large u n i t p o l i c y . One f a c t o r which w i l l be of p a r t i c u l a r importance w i l l be a community of i n t e r e s t flowing from bargaining (123) hi s t o r y . In Tahsis Company Limited^ v • i t was stressed that a community of i n t e r e s t w i l l have arisen merely by virtu e of p r i o r exclusion from the u n i t and the exercise of supervisory functions. However, the l a t e r d e c i s i o n i n (124) Oakanagan Telephone Co. ', which held that the i n t e r e s t s of supervisors could be adequately accomodated i n the e x i s t i n g structure, made i t c l e a r that .prior exclusion from the unit w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t i n a community of i n t e r e s t : (122) Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia Amendment Act, [1977] B i l l 89. _ _ ; ~_ ( 1 2 3 ) supra,""footnote 114. (124) Okanagan Telephone Company and Society of Telephone  Engineers and Managers and Federation of Telephone  Workers of B r i t i s h Columbia [1977] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R.; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 66/77-- 105 -"... There i s no automatic rule regarding the e f f e c t that the h i s t o r i c a l pattern of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining w i l l have on the Board's decision i n respect of the appropriateness of a p a r t i c u l a r bargaining u n i t . As with each of the other f a c t o r s which are relevant to our determination of that issue, the h i s t o r y of the bargaining r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p a r t i e s must be weigh-ed against the various other competing l e g a l and p o l i c y considerations. Having said that, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note that the Board w i l l attach greater weight than usual to that f a c t o r where i t contributes to, or r e s u l t s i n , the emergence of two or more d i f f e r e n t communities of i n t e r e s t amongst the employees within and without the bargaining u n i t . " ( 1 2 5 ) In e a r l i e r cases supervisors were placed i n e x i s t i n g units because of a community of i n t e r e s t r e s u l t i n g from the f a c t that a substantial portion of t h e i r time was spent on the ( same duties and with the same tools as the other employees and where a community of i n t e r e s t developed between f a c u l t y and Department Heads through the teaching function at a C o l l e g e . ( 1 2 7 ) Because the supervisory u n i t may involve a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of units, with a l l the attendant p o t e n t i a l f o r disruption, the Board has sketched an a l t e r n a t i v e to ( 1 2 5 ) i b i d . , at p. ( 1 2 6 ) V i t o Steel and Barge Construction Ltd., supra, foot-note 1 1 6 . ( 1 2 7 ) The Faculty Association of Vancouver C i t y College (Langara) and Vancouver C i t y College [ 1 9 7 ^ ] 1 Canad-ian L.R.B.R. 2 9 8 ; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 6 0 / 7 4 . - 106 -the use of Section 47. In B r i t i s h Columhia Ferry and  Marine Workers' Union^ ; the Board sought to protect the i n t e r e s t s of l i c e n s e d o f f i c e r s who had r e c e n t l y heen placed i n an all-employee u n i t by fasioning conditions which would accomodate the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s of the o f f i c e r s . Of p a r t i c u l a r importance was a "halo" clause which would protect the supervisory personnel from union d i s c i p l i n e f o r any actions taken i n the exercise of t h e i r supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The Board f e l t that t h i s type of approach could develop a format f o r bargaining which recognized s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups thus presenting a viable a l t e r -native to Section 47. ( i i i ) Dependent Contractor Units: The dependent contractor s i t u a t i o n c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l s the s i t u a t i o n of the supervisor i n that both are now being allowed access to the c o l l e c t i v e bargaining regime which had previously been unavailable to them. However, the methods by which t h i s access i s gained are very d i f f e r e n t . Section 48 of the Code does not allow f o r a separate u n i t f o r the dep-endent contractor, h i s access i s r e s t r i c t e d to being the subject of an a p p l i c a t i o n to vary a u n i t d e s c r i p t i o n previously found to be appropriate. The reasons f o r t h i s (128) B r i t i s h Columbia Ferry and Marine Workers' Union and B r i t i s h Columbia Government Employees Union and B.C.G.E.U. -- Marine Services -- Licensed Component B.C.L.R.B. Dec-i s i o n No. 57/77. - 107 -dif f e r e n c e i n approach r e l a t e to the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the concept of dependent contractor and the no t i o n of "employee"; and to r e f l e c t i o n s on the L e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n t e n t -ion i n allowing the expansion of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. The Board f i r s t o u t l i n e d i t s approach to the problem of dependent contractors i n a t r i l o g y of cases (129) concerning Fownes C o n s t r u c t i o n ^ ' . Here the Board studied the h i s t o r y of the d i s t i n c t i o n s between employees, dependent contractors and independent contractors and de-cided the c r i t e r i a which would be used to determine depend-ent contractor status. While the r a t i o n a l e of dependent contractor status i s not of s p e c i f i c concern to t h i s paper, several other observations are germane to the question of how the dependent contractor concept r e l a t e s to. the appropriate u n i t . F i r s t , the reason why the procedure involved i s r e s t r i c t e d to variance of an e x i s t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n r e f l e c t s the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n t e n t i o n to confine c o l l e c t i v e bargaining to the labour market: " I t does not want to permit wholesale organi-z a t i o n of groups of small businessmen who might be s a i d to be i n a dependent r e l a t i o n s h i p with some large corporation and who want to su b s t i t u t e (129) Teamsters Loc a l Union 213 and Fownes Construction Co. Ltd"! [ 1 9 7 4 ] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 3 5 3 , B.C.L.R.B. Decis-i o n No. 82/ 7 4 ; 1 9 7 4 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 5 1 0 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1 1 6 / 7 4 ; B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1 3 3 / 7 4 . - 108 -group bargaining f o r the market economy which now shapes t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l deal-ings. The contractors can only organize through the vehicle of a trade-union which already represents a group of employees i n a u n i t who share a s u f f i c i e n t community of i n t e r e s t with the contractors that the Board can f i n d i t appropriate to group them together." ( 1 3 0 ) Thus i t could be s a i d that dependent contractors must accomodate the concept of appropriateness instead of v i c e -versa. Or, as one panel put i t , "Once an appropriate u n i t has been established f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n , the Board must decide whehther there are "dependent contractors" within it...(13D Secondly, p r i o r to including dependent contract-ors i n a unit, a representation vote must be held to s a t i s f y Section 48(1)(a) which requires the consent of the majority (132) of contractors sought to be included. v J ' Then the p a r t i e s must show the Board that "reasonable procedures have been developed to integrate dependent contractors into the bar-(133) gaining u n i t " . •J~" ( 1 3 0 ) [197^ 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 4 5 3 at p. 4 5 8 . ( 1 3 1 ) Vancouver P r i n t i n g S p e c i a l t i e s and Paper Products  Union, Local 598 and P a c i f i c Press Ltd. |1975f 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 1 9 3 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.142/74. ( 1 3 2 ) P a c i f i c Press Ltd. and Vancouver-New Westminster  Newspaper Guild, Local 115 f !9777 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 3 4 2 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 4 / 7 7 . ( 1 3 3 ) s.48(l)(b). - 109 -F i n a l l y , the Board has given what i s probably the most compelling reason f o r using the procedure of variance to reconcile dependent contractors and the concept of appropriateness: "There i s an important p o l i c y l y i n g behind the requirement of a close r e l a t i o n s h i p between the contractor groups and the un i t of employees into which they are to be inserted. One major reason f o r t h i s statutory extension of c o l l e c t -ive bargaining is'the need to protect the empl-oyment standards won by the union i n a c o l l e c t -ive agreement from being undercut by contracts i n d i v i d u a l l y negotiated with weak outside con-t r a c t o r s . But that i s a concern only i f the function being performed by the contractors i s r e a d i l y substitutable f o r the one performed by the employees."(134) Therefore, the Board i s saying, that i f dependent con-trac t o r s did not f i t comfortably within the u n i t descrip-t i o n previously found to be appropriate, then these con= tract o r s are not the kind which employees need to be protected from. (iv) Multi-Employer Units: There have been no published decisions i n t e r p r e t i n g the requirements of Section 40 of the Code. I t i s possible, however, to p r e d i c t the approach which the Board may take to t h i s section by r e f -erence to the p o l i c i e s extant concerning other s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t units. (134) P a c i f i c Press Ltd., supra, footnote 1 3 1; see also, Cranbrook and D i s t r i c t H ospital and Hospital Employ-ees' Union, Local 180 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 82/76. - no -Section 40 could be characterized as a "conven-ience" section whereby the Board allows p a r t i e s to exchange c e r t a i n r i g h t s they have f o r a b e n e f i t from t h e i r opposite party, provided that c e r t a i n conditions surrounding t h i s exchange are met. This Section contemplates two small employers engaged i n r e l a t e d business who may wish to trade the r i g h t which they may have to keep t h e i r labour r e l a t i o n s separate f o r the administrative convenience of only having to bargain one, with a co-ordinated strategy. The quid pro quo the trade-union receives i s the heightened bargaining strength of two u n i t s . An instance of the type of s i t u a t i o n where t h i s could occur could involve a lens grinding and lens p o l i s h i n g company. Both are bona f i d e separate employers engaged i n the o p t i c a l industry. They may well f i n d i t advantageous to bargain j o i n t l y i f they have to deal only with one trade union. The Code w i l l countenance t h i s type of u n i t only where conditions are met which w i l l balance p o l i c i e s set i n other areas. The conditions are set out i n s.42(2). , F i r s t i s the requirement that the u n i t be appropriate f o r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining i n respect to a l l employees. This places the 'multi-employer u n i t under the umbrella of the general p o l i c y regarding appropriateness. Secondly, the - I l l -majority of employees must be members i n good standing of the applicant trade union. Note that t h i s does not require that a majority of employees i n each employer's workforce be members; i t i s a majority i n the multi-employer unit. Thirdly, a majority of the employers must consent to the representation of the u n i t by one trade union. Presumably, t h i s could mean that i f four out of seven named employers consented to a multi-employer unit,: t h e i r consent could bind the other three. Surely, the lack of consent by an employer would be a consideration i n determining the o v e r a l l appropriateness of the unit. F i n a l l y , the Code makes i t mandatory that the Board hold a hearing and conduct a representation vote before c e r t i f y i n g any trade union under t h i s section. II - Unit Modification There are a v a r i e t y of procedures avai l a b l e under the Code which allow the Board to a l t e r the scope of an e x i s t i n g bargaining u n i t . However, unlike the a p p l i c a -tions f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t units, u n i t modification i s usually seen as a remedy fo r problems i n bargaining structure father than d e f i n i t i o n a l problems r e l a t i n g to the parameters of the unit. Although modifi-- 112 -cation procedures are directed at d i f f e r e n t problems than the former, they also must accord with the general p o l i c y on appropriateness. In f a c t , the general p o l i c y may e x h i b i t a greater influence i n t h i s area than i t did i n the previous sections. (i ) Variance; Section 36 of the Code i s a grant of a "plenary independent power" ^ 3 5 ) B 0 a r d to enable i t to review decisions of a Panel. This review may be i n s t i t u t e d by any employer, trade union or other person, or on the Board's own motion. The review may take the form of a "reconsideration" of a decision or order, or, the Board may "vary or cancel" a decision or order. The term "recon-si d e r a t i o n " i s generally reserved f o r those instances which involve an inquiry into the ratiocenations of a Panel to ascertain whether they were i n keeping with previous decisions. As such, i t has been the source of a good deal of jurisprudence regarding guidelines f o r i t s u s e . ^ - ^ ' (135) Labour Relations Board of B r i t i s h Columbia v. O l i v e r Co-operative Growers Exchange (1962), 62 C.L.L.C. 15,4-28 (S.C.C.); see also, Bakery and Confectionary Workers Inter-n a t i o n a l Union v. White Lunch Ltd.(1966)66C.L.L.C. 14,110 (S.C.C.). (136) see generally; The Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of Burnaby  and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 23 (Burnaby  C i v i c Employees) [1974]! Canadian L.R.B.R. 128. B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.25/74; Arrow Transfer Co. Ltd. and Canadian  Association of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and A l l i e d Workers, Local 1 and General Truckdrivers and Helpers Union, Local _31[1974]1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 29, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 4/74; Robinson L i t t l e and Co.Ltd. and R e t a i l Clerks Union, Local 151811975)2 Canadian L.R.B.R..81. B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 32/75; Board of School Trustees of School D i s t r i c t No. 86 (Naniamo) and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local  No. 6 0 6 (Mid-Island School Employees)B.C.L.R.B• Decision No.21/77. -113 -The power to vary or cancel i s generally used to a l t e r the scope of bargaining units and, therefore, has a nexus with the general p o l i c y regarding appropriateness. I t i s t h i s nexus which i s of primary concern here, although reconsiderations of the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of a trade union w i l l be adverted to. The key decision on variances i s the decision i n (137) O l i v e t t i Canada L t d . v J t 1 Here, the union sought to repre-sent a new group of employees outside the scope of i t s ' e x i s t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n and the Board took the opportunity to sketch some guidelines f o r the variances. In discussing the employer's argument that an a d d i t i o n to a u n i t should only be made v i a the c e r t i f i c a t i o n procedure because that procedure provides f o r t e s t i n g the membership strength of the trade union, the Board observed: "The Board does not premit trade-unions to avoid the membership and timing conditions set i n Section 3 9 , i t sends out notices to be posted f o r the new group of employees, i t receives and considers submissions from intere s t e d p a r t i e s , i t determines the approp-riateness of the expanded bargaining unit, and i t i nvestigates the membership status of the trade-union i n the new area of the u n i t which the union seeks to represent." ( 1 3 8 ) ( 1 3 7 ) International Brotherhood'of E l e c t r i c a l Workers Local  213 and O l i v e t t i Canada Ltd. [1975] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 60, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 113/74. (138) i b i d . , at p. ; Section 36 also cannot be used to change trade union thus avoiding the requirements of s . 3 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) , Butler Tire Ltd. and Miscellaneous Workers  Wholesale and R e t a i l Delivery Drivers and Helper's Union, Local No.351 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 144/74. - 114 -In short, the Board follows the c e r t i f i c a t i o n procedure and i n determining the appropriateness of the bargaining u n i t follows the same l o g i c . As was said: " I f , a f t e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the Board i s s a t i s f i e d that one bargaining u n i t i s preferable to the fragmentation of the employees in t o two or more un i t s , the variance under Section 36, w i l l be granted, rather than a new c e r t i f i c a t i o n under Section 4 5 ."(139) The procedures outlined were tested i n the decision i n Reliance Lumber Co. Ltd: Stewart and Hudson Ltd. where, i n both instances, the trade union sought an a l l employee unit i n an enterprise where they had a previous c e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r a u n i t with a more l i m i t e d scope. Investigations by the Board disc l o s e d l i t t l e membership support among the employees who were hitherto unrepresented, although there was an o v e r a l l majority i n the u n i t applied f o r . The Board refused to allow these new employees to be swept into the u n i t without consent of the majority. The o r i g i n a l u n i t had been carved out of the all-employee u n i t ( l 4 l ) under the Woodwards exception to the general p o l i c y on (139) i b i d . , at p. ; see also the concern about fragment-ation on a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r variance expressed i n U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and Canadian Union of  P u b l i c Employees, Local 116 and Association of Univ-e r s i t y and College Employees, Local 1 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 127/74. ' (140) Teamsters Local Union 213 and Reliance Lumber Co.  Ltd.; Teamster Local Union 213 and Stewart and Hudson  Ltd. [1975] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 101, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 159/74. (141) supra, footnote 71. appropriateness and to allow the trade union to now turn around and claim that the a l l employee u n i t was the approp-r i a t e one would be i n c o n s i s t e n t u n t i l a s u f f i c i e n t proport-ion of the" new group of employees have been persuaded that i t i s i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t to become part of the u n i t . ' The general p o l i c y on appropriateness i s u t i l i z e d i n a p o s i t i v e f a s h i o n i n a p p l i c a t i o n s to consol-idate u n i t s , another form of variance. For example, a un i t may be consolidated upon the a p p l i c a t i o n of an emp-loy e r because of p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t that an e x i s t i n g (111!) fragmented bargaining structure poses. •Jl A trade union with more than one c e r t i f i c a t i o n with a p a r t i c u l a r employee may apply to consolidate f o r reasons of administrative (144) e f f i c i e n c y . (145) The Woodwards •Jl exception can be seen at work (142) see also, Royal J u b i l e e H o s p i t a l and Veterans Hosp-i t a l and United A s s o c i a t i o n of Journeymen and Apprent-i c e s of the Plumbing and P i p e f i t t i n g Industry of the  United States and Canada, Loc a l No. 324 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 148/74. (143) Canadian C e l l u l o s e Co. Ltd. and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Wood-workers of America, L o c a l 1-405 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 24/77-(144) Kermalrd's Motor Hotel Co. Ltd. and Beverage Dispens-ers and Cul i n a r y Workers Union, Local No. 835 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 145/74; B u t l e r T i r e Ltd., supra? footnote 1 3 7 (145) supra, footnote 71-- 116 -i n the case of H.Y. Louie Company Limited/ '. Here there was an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a single person to he added to a u n i t . 'The problem was that t h i s person was geographically removed from that unit. Since ;one man units are not c e r t i f i a b l e , the only method of obtaining representation was by var-iance . A denial of the variance would amount to a denial of representation, therefore the variance was granted. Section 36 also grants the Board the power to cancel a c e r t i f i c a t i o n . This most extreme form of u n i t modification was considered i n Standard Bus Contracting  Ltd: Berryland Canning Co. Ltd. ' I t was stated that "In general, an a d d i t i o n to a bargaining uni t as a r e s u l t e i t h e r of a Section 34 determination or a v a r i a t i o n under Section 36 w i l l not r e s u l t i n c a n c e l l a t i o n unless the addition fundamentally a l t e r s the nat-ure of the unit.(148) However, cancellations cannot be used i f they are motivated only by the desire to change unions. To allow them to be (Ik so used would undermine the requirements of Section 39(2). (146) H.Y. Louie Company Ltd. and R e t a i l , Wholesale and  Department Store Union, Local No. 580 B.C.L.R.B. -' Decision No. 86/74. ' (147) General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No.31  and Standard Bus Contracting and Prince George Transit  Ltd., Canadian Food and A l l i e d Workers Local P517 and  Berryland Canning Company Ltd. [1976] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R.,30, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 72/75-(148) i b i d . , (149) Butler T i r e , supra, footnote 1 3 7 . - 117 -( i i ) SuccessorJJnits'Y Section 5 3 of the Code i s designed to protect the bargaining r i g h t s of a trade union when an employer disposes of i t s business or a su b s t a n t i a l part of the assets. I t operates to bind the successor employer to a l l proceedings under the Code p r i o r to the d i s p o s i t i o n , and to any e x i s t i n g c o l l e c t i v e agreements. Disputes concerning t h i s Section generally f a l l i nto two categories: those centering around the ch a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of a transaction as such as to f a l l within those contemplated, by the Section and those concerning successorships which involve the i n t e g r a t i o n of two employee groups. Often, both categoris surface i n r e l a t i o n to a single d i s p o s i t i o n yet the p r i n c i p l e s involved i n t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n are d i f f e r -ent. The ch a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the transaction does not involve p r i n c i p l e s developed under other Sections of the Code while the e f f e c t of intermingling employee groups has as a primary concern the general p o l i c y regarding approp-r i a t e u n i t s . I t i s the l a t t e r category which w i l l be of concern to us. However, some reference should be made to the operation of the Section i n general. Where there i s no threat of nor lo s s of bargain-ing u n i t work and no loss of r i g h t s already achieved, there i s no"transfer of business" within the meaning of the Section. (150) Acklands Limited and R e t a i l , Wholesale and Department  Store Union. Local 580)197611 Canadian L.R.B.R. 71, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 67/75. - 118 -However, outside of t h i s caveat, the word transfer i s to (1 51) he given a l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . v J ' I t has been held that a foreclosure i s a d i s p o s i t i o n contemplated by the (152') " Section. * -1 ' I t i s not meant to cover transfers of di s p o s i t i o n s within the same corporate framework. ^-53) The Section operates without a formal declar-(1541 ation from the Board; i t s provisions are automatic. v ^ ' However, there must be a d i s c e r n i b l e continuity i n the business of employment r e l a t i o n s h i p and as such there may be some s i t u a t i o n s where the d i s p o s i t i o n of assets and the commencement of a new enterprise are so d i s j o i n t e d that the Section w i l l not operate^^5) t ijhe motivation of (151) Bay Concrete Block Co. Ltd. and Bay Concrete Block  Co., Div Turismo Industries Ltd. and ;3utler Lafarge  Ltd. and Teamsters Local Union 213 B..C.L.R.B.R. Dec-i s i o n No. 27/75-(152) Clearwood Lumber Co. Ltd.and International Woodworkers of America, Local 1-217 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 74/77. (153) Acklands Limited, supra, footnote 149. ( 1 5 4 ) Clearwood Lumber Co. Ltd. and International Woodworkers of America, Local 1-217 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 74/77. (155) Peninsula Bookbinding Ltd. and Graphic Arts Internat- i o n a l Union, Local No. 10 513 B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 26/77; F & W Wholesale Limited and Vance Bros. Ltd. and Canadian A l l i e d Manufacturers Wholesale and R e t a i l  Union B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1/77. - 119 -the p a r t i e s to the t r a n s f e r of business i s i r r e l e v a n t . D ' The keynote feature at a l l times, i s an assessment of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the employees, the successor and the undertaking. Just as any other u n i t modification procedure, when two or more employee groups are intermingled by the operation of Section 53, the new u n i t formed must accord with the general p o l i c y regarding appropriateness. In (157) K e l l y Douglas Ltd. v - J (' , the very f i r s t case under t h i s Section, the Board made i t very c l e a r that i t would not allow two unions to carve out separate parameters from one employee group j u s t because the two groups being integrated have separate union representatives; " I t i s c l e a r that that kind of representation i s inconsistent with the labour r e l a t i o n s p o l i c y r e f l e c t e d i n the Code. There are two basic constituents of that p o l i c y . The Board must f i r s t determine what i s the appropriate bargaining u n i t under Section 4-2.(158) This d e f e r r a l to the general p o l i c y has been stressed ( 1 5 6) Intermountain Industries Limited and F.J. McLeod and  United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 29 Locals 1 9 7 5 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 2 5 7 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 1 7 0 / 7 4 . ( 1 5 7 ) K e l l y Douglas & Company Limited, W.H. Malkin Ltd., P a c i f i c Cartage Group Limited and K e l l y Douglas and  Subsidiary Companies Employees' Association, R e t a i l  Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 5 8 0 , Gen- e r a l Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Teamsters Local . 2k 1 9 7 4 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 7 7 , B.C.L.R.B. Decision No.. 8 / 7 4 . ( 1 5 8 ) ibid.-, at p. repeatedly v J y ' with the Board noting the fundamental reason f o r t h i s d e f e r r a l i n the Narcotic A d d i c t i o n Services case. I t was s a i d ; " The determination of appropriateness under Section 53 i s analogous to the determination t h i s Board makes i n an i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n under Section 42 of the Code or i n an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a variance of an e x i s t i n g u n i t under Section 36 of the Code. More s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the determination i s attend-ed by the same consequences - - consequences  which have not been s p e l l e d out i n previous  successorship cases before t h i s Board but  which f o l l o w inexorably from the scheme of  the Code. In a Section 53 d i s p o s i t i o n i n v o l v -ing two or more unions (one c e r t i f i e d f o r the t r a n s f e r e r and another c e r t i f i e d , _ f o r the trans-eree), the l i t e r a l e f f e c t of Section 53(1)« read by i t s e l f , i s to l e g a l l y bind the succes-sor employer to two u n i t c e r t i f i c a t i o n s . Section 53(3)(a), however, expressly allows the Board to determine that one u n i t might be appropriate i n the circumstances."(16?) The dispute over whether p o l i c i e s developed under Section 42 were to be superimposed i n Section 53 a p p l i c a t i o n s was c o n c l u s i v e l y resolved i n the Boston Bar (159) The Bridge, Young Womens C h r i s t i a n A s s o c i a t i o n and  C i t y of Vancouver Municiapal Regional Employer's Union L1975J 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 253. B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 38/75. (160) Narcotic Addiction Services of the Vancouver Resources  Board, Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees Union  and The Department of Health of the Government of  B r i t i s h Columbia, B r i t i s h Columbia Government Employ-ees Union B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 7/77. (161) i b i d . , at p.5-- 121 -Lumber case. This case i s e s p e c i a l l y notable as i t involves the a p p l i c a t i o n of the general p o l i c y i n a s i t u a t i o n where there was no intermingling of employee groups. The Board stated that, while employee desires may be given s p e c i a l weight under Section 53, they w i l l never be, by themselves, persuasive enough f o r the Board to consider preserving a u n i t no longer appropriate f o r c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. The Section 53 deference to the general p o l i c y on appropriateness i s not confined to i n -stances where employee groups are intermingled and even when the s i t u a t i o n i s such that no intermingling occurs, i t must s t i l l be possible to draw a r a t i o n a l and defensible l i n e around the u n i t sought to be preserved. The primary consideration i n drawing that l i n e i s the structure of bargaining throughout the whole of the successor employer's enterprise. The Woodwards(^3) i s n o t a p p i i c a D i e when the successor employer's employees are already represented and the creation of the l a r g e r u n i t w i l l not submerge a small group of employees who want c o l l e c t i v e bargaining within a (162) Boston Bar Lumber and Timber Workers Association and  B.C. Forest Products and The International Woodworker's  Association, Local 1-367 [1976]! Canadian L.R.B.R. 380, B.C.L.R.B. Decision No. 23/76. (163) supra, footnote 71. - 122 -much l a r g e r employee group which does not. The s u c c e s s o r p r o v i s i o n s of the Code do not cover t r a n s f e r s of u n i t s from the p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n t o p u b l i c s e c t o r u n i t s covered under the P u b l i c S e r v i c e Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t . ^ I I I - C o a l i t i o n B a r g a i n i n g The Code p r o v i d e s r e c i p r o c a l procedures to c e r t i -f i c a t i o n which contemplate groups of unions or groups o f employers b i n d i n g t o g e t h e r t o form a s i n g l e b a r g a i n i n g agent. The newly c r e a t e d agent w i l l have the e x c l u s i v e a u t h o r i t y to r e p r e s e n t and b i n d the membership i n e x a c t l y the same manner as a t r a d e union i s g i v e n t h a t r i g h t v i s a v i s employees. The s p e c i f i c S e c t i o n s g o v e r n i n g the development o f these agencies d i f f e r markedly. However, g i v e n t h a t these s e c t i o n s c a l l f o r d r a s t i c a l t e r a t i o n s o f b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e , i t would seem l o g i c a l t h a t the p r i n c i p l e s used to determine the a p p r o p r i a t e groupings should r e f l e c t the p o l i c i e s e n u n c i a t e d t o govern c e r t i f i c a t i o n of employees. (i ) A c c r e d i t a t i o n : An a c c r e d i t a t i o n o r d e r under S e c t i o n 59 i s (164) see a l s o , General Truck D r i v e r s and H e l p e r s Union, L o c a l 31 and I n t e r - C i t y Express L t d . [1974] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 471, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 94/74. (165) see N a r c o t i c A d d i c t i o n S e r v i c e s , supra f o o t n o t e 160; B r i d g e , Young Womans C h r i s t i a n A s s o c i a t i o n , s u p r a, f o o t n o t e 159. - 123 -i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y a f t e r the Board i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t c e r t a i n p r e c o n d i t i o n s have been met. F i r s t the employers named i n the a p p l i c a t i o n must c o n s t i t u t e a group a p p r o p r i a t e f o r c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . T h i s requirement of an a p p r o p r i a t e group i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the requirement of an a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t i n a c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s i n c e any community o f i n t e r e s t amongst employers a r i s e s o n l y out o f the f a c t t h a t they p a r t i c i p a t e i n the same market. The employer's wage to p r e s e n t a common f r o n t i s u s u a l l y c o n f i n e d to matters o f c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n and i s o f t e n generated by the p e r v a s i v e presence o f a p a r t i c u l a r u n i o n i n a s i n g l e i n d u s t r y . The p e r v a s i v e union presence enhances the union's b a r g a i n i n g s t r e n g t h , c a l l i n g f o r employer measures to remedy the imbalance. For example, i n the secondary metal manufacturing i n d u s t r y where the S t e e l w o r k e r s predominate, employers b a r g a i n through the M e t a l I n d u s t r i e s A s s o c i a t i o n . In the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y where the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Woodworkers of America predominate, employers b a r g a i n through the F o r e s t I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Bureau. However, d e s p i t e the d i f f e r e n c e s between groups of employers and u n i t s o f employees, the p r i n c i p l e s used to s k e t c h the a c c e p t a b l e l i m i t s o f the c o n s t i t u e n c y s h o u l d be p a r a l l e l . The second p r e - c o n d i t i o n i s t h a t the employers named i n the a p p l i c a t i o n must be members o f the a p p l i c a n t o r g a n i z a t i o n . The f i n a l p r e - c o n d i t i o n i s t h a t the Board must be - 124 -s a t i s f i e d t h a t employers named i n the a p p l i c a t i o n have agreed t o the a c c r e d i t a t i o n o f the a p p l i c a n t as t h e i r b a r g a i n i n g agent. T h i s i s q u i t e a t odds w i t h the m a j o r i t y r u l e p r i n c i p l e used i n c e r t i f i c a t i o n and seems to m a n i f e s t q u i t e a "conser-v a t i v e " approach t o the f a s h i o n i n g o f employer b a r g a i n i n g (166) agents. T h i s requirement of consent seems to c o n t a i n a , judgment t h a t an employer may have a s p e c t s o f i t s o p e r a t i o n which do not le n d themselves to broad based b a r g a i n i n g . The person b e s t a b l e t o make t h a t judgment i s the employer i t s e l f . However, some have expressed the o p i n i o n t h a t i n f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n d u s t r i e s , l i k e the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y ^ t h e requirement o f consent may have t o g i v e way to the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t c o n t r a c t s n e g o t i a t e d by a s i n g l e employer impact on the whole i n d u s t r y and the L e g i s l a t u r e may w e l l move to more a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g n o t i o n s o f a c c r e d i t a t i o n . With the d i f f e r e n c e s h i g h l i g h t e d by these pre-con-d i t i o n s i n mind we can t u r n t o a s c e r t a i n i n g whether the concept of a p p r o p r i a t e group i s r e s p o n s i v e t o the g e n e r a l p o l i c y f o r m u l a t e d i n c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . The r e l i a n c e on the g e n e r a l p o l i c y o f a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s f i n d s i t s b e s t e x p r e s s i o n i n (166) see W e i l e r , "Fragmented or C e n t r a l i z e d B a r g a i n i n g " . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Trends i n I n d u s t r i a l and Labour R e l a t i o n s , M c G i l l . U n i v e r s i t y , May 26, 1976. (167) see W e i l e r , "The S t r u c t u r e o f B a r g a i n i n g i n B.C. C o n s t r u c t i o n " , C o n s t r u c t i o n Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , H a r r i s o n Hot S p r i n g s , B.C., October 21, 1977. - 125 -cases which i n v o l v e r e q u e s t s t o be d e l e t e d from an a c c r e d -i t a t i o n . In Ocean C o n s t r u c t i o n ) the Board s i n g l e d out the n o t i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s as the c l u e t o the e x e r c i s e o f the Board's d i s c r e t i o n t o a l l o w an employer t o be d e l e t e d from an a c c r e d i t a t i o n . I f the o b j e c t i v e f e a t u r e s o f an a p p l i c a n t employer's s i t u a t i o n are such t h a t i t i s no l o n g e r " s e n s i b l e " f o r i t to be i n c l u d e d i n the format o f the a c c r e d i t a t i o n then the Board w i l l g r a n t d e - a c c r e d i t a t i o n . The key f e a t u r e t o note i s t h a t the judgment i n v o l v e d r e l a t e s t o the c o n s t i t u e n t members' community o f i n t e r e s t i n the b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e : The Board must be persuaded t h a t the p o s i t i o n o r b u s i n e s s o f the i n d i v i d u a l employer i s such t h a t c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g cannot s e n s i b l y w i t h i n the format of the employers a s s o c i a t i o n . In t h a t r e g a r d , the Board engages i n much the same type o f a n a l -y s i s o f the "community of i n t e r e s t " between the v a r i o u s members of the employees' a s s o c -i a t i o n as i t u t i l i z e s i n d e f i n i n g the " a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t " i n a c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n t o v a r y , t o c o n t r a c t , o r t o fragment a c e r t i f i e d b a r g a i n i n g agent, the Board r e q u i r e s the a p p l i c a n t t o make a s t r o n g l y p e r s u a s i v e case t h a t i t s i n t e r e s t s can no lon g e r a dequately be ser v e d by what has been an ongoing c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e . P e r m i s s i o n f o r i n d i v i d u a l d e - a c c r e d i t a t i o n under S e c t i o n 59 (6) i s , r e l u c t a n t l y , not r e a d i l y , g r a n t e d by the Board."(169) (168) Ocean C o n s t r u c t i o n S u p p l i e s Northern L i m i t e d and  T r a n s p o r t Labour R e l a t i o n s and Teamsters L o c a l  Union 213 [1976] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 175, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 7/76. (169) i b i d . , a t p. 181. see a l s o , Davis Wire - 126 -The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p r i n c i p l e s under-l y i n g the concept o f a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s i n an i n i t i a l a p p l i -c a t i o n f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n and the p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g a c c r e d i t a t i o n has been expressed i n o t h e r f a s h i o n s . In G r e a t e r Vancouver H o t e l Employers' A s s o c i a t i o n ^ 7 0 ^ the Board expressed a f a m i l i a r concern about the e f f e c t s of f r a g m e n t a t i o n . In A l b e r n i E n g i n e e r i n g the r e f r a i n o f a concern t h a t b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e promote e f f e c t i v e i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s was heard a g a i n . ( i ) C o u n c i l s of Trade-Unions: S e c t i o n 57 of the Code g r a n t s t o the Board the power, e x e r c i s a b l e o n l y on the d i r e c t i o n o f the M i n i s t e r , to a l t e r e x i s t i n g b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e s to c r e a t e a s i n g l e agent t o r e p r e s e n t a u n i t composed of a number o f d i s t i n c t b a r g a i n i n g agents. In (172) B.C. Railway Company, the Board s e t f o r t h the type o f b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e which would prompt the use of t h i s s e c t i o n , and the gravamen of the S e c t i o n . "In the normal course of e v e n t s , a Board i n q u i r y i n t o a c o u n c i l o f t r a d e - u n i o n s emerges from a s i t u a t i o n i n which s e v e r a l groups o f (170) G r e a t e r Vancouver H o t e l Employers' A s s o c i a t i o n and  B r i t i s h Columbia H o t e l s ' A s s o c i a t i o n and J o i n t Board  R e p r e s e n t i n g H o t e l & R e s t a u r a n t Employees' and Bar- t e n d e r s ' Union, L o c a l 835 [1976] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 218, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 36/7 6. (171) A l b e r n i E n g i n e e r i n g and S h i p y a r d L t d . and Duncan  Ironworks and Metal. I n d u s t r i e s A s s o c i a t i o n ("1977 ~| 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 190, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 9 2/76; see a l s o , G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n and Board of" s c h o o l T r u s t e e s o t S c h o o l D i s t r i c t No. 61  (Greater V i c t o r i a and Canadian Union o f P u b l i c Employers L o c a l s 382 and 947 B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 74/76. - 127 -employees of one employer are r e p r e s e n t e d by d i f f e r e n t u n i o n s . Because of the f u n c -t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s or t r a d i t i o n a l a l l e g i a n c e s .among the employees, s e p a r a t e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t s w i l l have e v o l v e d . T h i s can produce h i g h l y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s , w i t h c o m p e t i t i o n among b a r g a i n i n g agents, whip-sawing of the employer, s t a g g e r e d c o n t r a c t renewal d a t e s , c o n s e c u t i v e s t r i k e s and p i c k e t l i n e s which shut the e n t i r e o p e r a t i o n . The assumption of S e c t i o n 57 i s t h a t the Board may conclude t h a t the proper a n t i d o t e f o r t h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s i s a l a r g e r appro-p r i a t e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t which p e r m i t s co-o r d i n a t i o n of n e g o t i a t i o n s and a r e d u c t i o n o f i n d u s t r i a l u n r e s t . I f the Board does make t h a t judgment about the u n i t , i t must a l s o develop a c o u n c i l of t r a d e unions as the b a r g a i n i n g agent, w i t h a c o n s t i t u t i o n which d e f i n e s the r e l a t i o n s o f these s e v e r a l unions i n the b a r g a i n i n g process."(173) A f t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s i t u a t i o n as one which S e c t i o n 57 was meant t o a m e l i o r a t e , t h e r e f o l l o w s a two-stage i n q u i r y . F i r s t , the Board c o n s i d e r s i f a broader b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e i s i n o r d e r . The key i n n o v a t i o n o f the S e c t i o n i s t h a t i t a l l o w s t h i s enlargement to o c c u r w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g the Board to u n r a v e l the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n -i n g h i s t o r y and d i s l o d g e the incument a g e n t s . ( ^ 4 ) T n e e x i s t i n g agents c o n t i n u e to r e p r e s e n t t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s , o n l y now through the agency o f the Board c r e a t e d c o u n c i l o f (173) (174) i b i d . , a t p. 7. In the Matter o f a C o u n c i l o f Trade-Unions under S e c t i o n 57 of the Labour Code at the B.C. Railway Company [1977] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 309, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 88/76. - 128 -t r a d e u n i o n s . T h i s i s the c r u c i a l d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f a c t o r between an " a p p r o p r i a t e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t " , and the concept of a c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s . I f a c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s 1 s i t u a t i o n were c l e a r l y a matter of a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , such as i t e x i s t s i n the i n i t i a l a c q u i s i t i o n o f b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s , then e x i s t i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s would have t o cease i n o r d e r t o a c c o r d w i t h the n o t i o n o f e x c l u s i v i t y . T h i s S e c t i o n a l l o w s the Board t o meld the l o g i c of g e n e r a l p o l i c y on a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s w i t h the r e a l i t y o f the h i s t o r y o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g i n the r e l e v a n t workplace. The second stage o f the i n q u i r y i s f a s h i o n i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n t o r e g u l a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the component members o f the c o u n c i l . The need f o r t h i s r e g u l a t o r y d e v i c e stems from two c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . C o u n c i l s of t r a d e unions a r e not v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s and a c o u n c i l may o n l y be d i s s o l v e d , or a member p e r m i t t e d t o withdraw, by l e a v e o f the Board. T h e r e f o r e , a c o n s t i t u t i o n i s needed t o r e s t r a i n a n i m o s i t i e s or c r a f t a l l e g i a n c e s from impeding the b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s . The c o n s t i t u t i o n s h o u l d p r o v i d e o b j e c t i v e methods f o r the r e s o l u t i o n o f d i s p u t e s between members. The Board i s not p r e p a r e d t o a l l o w p a r t i e s t o fragment b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e s on the b a s i s o f employee d e s i r e s simply because they can remedy the s i t u a t i o n v i a S e c t i o n 5 7 . T h i s would amount t o " l o c k i n g the barn door" - 129 -o n l y a f t e r the harm has been done. Chapter Four - C o n c l u s i o n The B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board has r e a l i z e d t h a t the s t r u c t u r e o f b a r g a i n i n g has a dramatic e f f e c t on e f f o r t s to a c h i e v e i n d u s t r i a l s t a b i l i t y . A c c o r d i n g l y , they have f a s h i o n e d an approach t a i l o r e d t o the achievement o f s t r u c t u r e s which w i l l l e n d themselves t o the m i n i m i z a t i o n o f i n d u s t r i a l c o n f l i c t and have made e f f o r t s t o c u l t i v a t e p u b l i c awareness of t h e i r p o l i c i e s . They have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the achievement of i n d u s t r i a l s t a b i l i t y w i l l come o n l y w i t h a s u s t a i n e d implementation of a s i n g l e p o l i c y o f u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i n s t e a d o f a s e a r c h f o r a case by case p a l l i a t i v e meant t o be a c c e p t a b l e i n a g i v e n i n s t a n c e . T h e i r p o l i c i e s r e p r e s e n t a s i g n i f i c a n t s t e p i n the ethos o f Canadian Labour Law. The B r i t i s h Columbia Board has been a c u t e l y aware of the t e n s i o n between the l e g i s l a t i v e o b j e c t i v e s t h a t b a r g a i n -i n g u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s must se r v e and have attempted t o develop a p o l i c y which a c h i e v e s an e q u i l i b r i u m between those o b j e c t i v e s . They have r e s t r u c t u r e d the whole p r o c e s s o f u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n by d e v e l o p i n g a g e n e r a l p o l i c y o f u n i t d e t e r m i n -a t i o n which must be c o n f r o n t e d by every a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c e r t i -f i c a t i o n . However, the p o l i c y i s s t r u c t u r e d such t h a t i t w i l l accommodate the e x c e p t i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n thereby a v o i d i n g the (175) B r i t i s h Columbia F e r r y C o r p o r a t i o n , supra f o o t n o t e 66. - 130 -problem of i n f l e x i b i l i t y . The e x c e p t i o n s to the g e n e r a l p o l i c y are d i c t a t e d by the o b j e c t i v e s the g e n e r a l p o l i c y i s meant t o s e r v e . The e n u n c i a t i o n of the g e n e r a l p o l i c y i s meant t o i n t e r j e c t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n t o the d e t e r -m i n a t i o n o f the a p p r o p r i a t e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t . The p a r t i e s are no l o n g e r e n t i t l e d to have each case determined on an ad hoc b a s i s . The most remarkable a s p e c t of t h e . B r i t i s h Columbia approach i s i t s c o n s i s t e n c y . F o r example, the requirement t h a t a l l s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s u n i t s a c c o r d w i t h th e g e n e r a l p o l i c y i s a major d i v e r g e n c e from p r e v i o u s approaches which o f t e n mandated s p e c i a l s t a t u s f o r c r a f t u n i t s and o t h e r s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s u n i t s . The r e f u s a l t o draw d i s t i n c t i o n s among employee groups based upon s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s a i d s i n the development o f r a t i o n a l b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e s . A f u r t h e r commitment to the n o t i o n t h a t c o n s i s t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i n the development o f more workable b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e s can be seen i n the Board's i n t e g r a t i o n of the g e n e r a l p o l i c y o f u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n t o u n i t m o d i f i -c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s . T h i s i s s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when one c o n s i d e r s t h a t u n i t m o d i f i c a t i o n procedures u s u a l l y t r a n s p i r e l o n g a f t e r the i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the u n i t has been made. The r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e i s an on-g o i n g p r o c e s s which does not t e r m i n a t e a f t e r i n i t i a l b oundaries - 131 -have been s e t . F i n a l l y , and most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , we have seen the ad o p t i o n o f the concern f o r b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e i n s i t u a t i o n s o f c o a l i t i o n b a r g a i n i n g . The a c c r e d i t a t i o n and c o u n c i l o f t r a d e union procedures r e p r e s e n t a b r i d g e t o i n d u s t r y wide b a r g a i n i n g . The presage a b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e f a r beyond t h a t envisaged i n d e t e r m i n i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n purposes, however both procedures r e c o g n i z e t h a t the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f u n c t i o n o f u n i t d e t e r m i n -a t i o n w i l l never completely s u b s i d e . Even a t t h i s expanded l e v e l , the c r e a t i o n o f the b a r g a i n i n g agency must be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the c o n s t i t u e n c y i t seeks to r e p r e s e n t e l s e the r e s u l t i n g b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e w i l l be unworkable. The adherence t o a s i n g l e p o l i c y o f u n i t d e t e r m i n -a t i o n i s a l s o o f g r e a t p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . I t e l i m i n a t e s the wasted e f f o r t which o c c u r s when p a r t i e s cannot r e a s o n a b l y a s s e s s t h e i r chances o f success i n a l i t i g i o u s s i t u a t i o n . More i m p o r t a n t l y , the p u b l i c nature o f the B r i t i s h Columbia p o l i c y a l l o w s the p a r t i e s t o observe c o n s i s t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n thus e n s u r i n g p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e i n the Board's i m p a r t i a l i t y . An o b j e c t i v e and n e u t r a l stance i s i m p e r a t i v e t o p r o t e c t the Board from the f r u s t r a t i o n which develops when l e g a l r e s e a r c h f o r e t e l l s o n l y t h a t a matter i s w i t h i n the s o l e d i s c r e t i o n of the a d m i n i s t e r i n g e n t i t y . - 132 -The B r i t i s h Columbia p o l i c y has r e c o g n i z e d the importance o f u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g regime. The p o l i c y c a l l s f o r a s i n g l e i n t e g r a t e d approach to u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n o r d e r t o encourage b a r g a i n i n g s t r u c t u r e s which l e n d themselves t o i n d u s t r i a l s t a b i l i t y . S e v e r a l o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have approbated and adopted the B r i t i s h Columbia a p p r o a c h . ^ H o p e f u l l y o t h e r s w i l l f o l l o w . (1) S e r v i c e , O f f i c e and R e t a i l Workers' Union of Canada and Canadian I m p e r i a l Bank of Commerce [1977 ] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 99; Trade o f Locomotive E n g i n e e r s and Canadian  P a c i f i c [1976] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 361; Canadian Union  o f P u b l i c Employees, L o c a l 4 88 and C e n t r a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n & S e c u r i t y Agency L i m i t e d [1978] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 91. - 133 -SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books, Reports Abodeely, J . , The NLRB and the A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a P r e s s , 1971) B e a l , E., The P r a c t i s e of C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g (Homewood: R i c h a r d D. I r w i n Inc., 1972) Braun, K., The R i g h t to Organize and I t s L i m i t s (Washington: The Brookings I n s t i t u t e , 1950) C a r r o t h e r s , A.R., C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g Law i n Canada (Toronto: Butterworths L t d . 1965) C o r t n e r , R., The Wagner A c t Cases ( K n o x v i l l e : U. o f Tennessee P r e s s , 1964) C r i s p o , J . , The Canadian I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n System (Toronto: McGraw H i l l , 1978) Dunlop, A. and Chamberlin, N., F r o n t i e r s of C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a i n i n g (New York: Harper & Row, 1967) Getlow, A., Labour and I n d u s t r i a l S o c i e t y (Homewood I l l i n o i s , R i c h a r d D. I r w i n , 1963). Gorman, R., Labour Law ( M i n n e a p o l i s : West P u b l i s h i n g , 1976) Herman, E., The S i z e and Composition of B a r g a i n i n g U n i t s (Ottawa: Woods Report, 1968) Herman, E., D e t e r m i n a t i o n of the A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t (Ottawa: Queens P r i n t e r s , 1966) M o r r i s , C , The D e v e l o p i n g Labour Law (Washington: The B.N.A., 1971) Sack, J . and L e v i n s o n , M., O n t a r i o Labour R e l a t i o n s Board  Procedure (Toronto, B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1973) S t u r m t h a l , A., Contemporary C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g i n Seven  C o u n t r i e s ( C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1957) Weber, A., The S t r u c t u r e of C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g (Chicago: Free Press of Glencoe Inc., 1961) Woods, H., The Task F o r c e Report on Canadian I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s (1968) A r t i c l e s A d l e r , J . ,, A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t Under S.9(b) of T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t (1960), 58 Mich. L. Rev. 476. Alexander, K., Union S t r u c t u r e and B a r g a i n i n g S t r u c t u r e (1973), Lab. L . J . 164. Bone, R. , Notes from the R e g i s t r a r (1975)., P e r s p e c t i v e Volume 35 Brooks, G., S t a b i l i t y Versus Employee Fr e e Choice (1976), 61 C o r n e l l L.R. 344. Cohen, The A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t Under the N a t i o n a l  Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t (1939) 39 C o l . L. Rev. 1110. Craypo, C , B a r g a i n i n g U n i t s and Co r p o r a t e Merger: N.L.R.B.  P o l i c y i n the I n t e r c i t y Bus I n d u s t r y (1976), I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s L . J . 285. Dorsey, J.E., A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t s and the Employer's  F a m i l i a l R e l a t i o n s (1976), 3 D a l . L . J . 387. Grooms, T., The N.L.R.B. and D e t e r m i n a t i o n of the A p p r o p r i a t e  U n i t : Need f o r a Workable Standard (1965), 6 W i l l i a m and Mary L.R. 13. H a l l , R., The A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t : S t r i k i n g a Balance  Between S t a b l e Labor R e l a t i o n s and Employee F r e e C h o i c e (1967) 18 Western Reserve L.R. 479. Jones, D., S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n v. S t a b i l i t y o f Labor R e l a t i o n s (1960), 58 Mich. L.R. 313. L e v i n e , S., A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t - C r a f t Severance  Denied (1960), 33 Temple Law Q. 370. Mayer, M., D e t e r m i n a t i o n of the A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t i n  M u l t i - P l a n t E n t e r p r i s e s (1941), 51 Y a l e L . J . 155. Rains, C., The D e t e r m i n a t i o n of the A p p r o p r i a t e B a r g a i n i n g U n i t  by the N.L.R.B.: A Lack of O b j e c t i v i t y P e r c e i v e d (1967), 8 B.C. Ind. and Comm. L.R. 175. R i g h t t o Work: Pro and Con (1966), 17 Lab. L . J . 131. Rose, G., M i n o r i t y R i g h t s v. M a j o r i t y Rule (1951), 37 Am. B.A. Jo u r . 195. Seidman, J . , B a r g a i n i n g S t r u c t u r e : Some Problems of Complexity and D i s l o c a t i o n (1973) Lab. L . J . 340. - 135 -S c h a t z k i , G., • M a j o r i t y Rule. E x c l u s i v e R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and the  I n t e r e s t s of I n d i v i d u a l Workers - Should E x c l u s i v i t y be  A b o l i s h e d (1975), 123 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 897. Warner, D., A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s f o r B a r g a i n i n g : A New Coverage  Standard f o r Mandatory C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g S t a t u t e s (1974), 21 U.C.L.A. Law Rev. 996. W e i l e r , P., Fragmented or C e n t r a l i z e d B a r g a i n i n g , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Trends i n I n d u s t r i a l and Labour R e l a t i o n s , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , May 26, 1976. W e i l e r , P., The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r i b u n a l : A View from the  I n s i d e (1976), 26 U. of T. L. J . 193. W e i l e r , P., The S t r u c t u r e o f B a r g a i n i n g i n B.C. C o n s t r u c t i o n , -Construction Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , H a r r i s o n Hot S p r i n g s , B.C., October 21, 1977. S t a t u t e s The A l b e r t a Labour A c t S.A. 1947 c.8, s.59. A l b e r t a Labour A c t S.A. 1973 c.33, s . 6 6 ( l ) . Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1970 c.L-1, s.110(1). C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g A c t S.O. 1943 c.4. I n d u s t r i a l D i s p u t e s and I n v e s t i g a t i o n A c t R.S.C. 1927 c.112. I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s A c t S t a t . P.E.I. 1962 c.18, s.15. I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s A c t R.S.N.B. 1973 c.I-4, s.2(l). . Labour Code of B r i t i s h Columbia S.B.C. 1973 (2nd Sess.) c.122,. s . 2 ( l ) . Labour Code R.S.i 3. 1964 c.141, s. 3 • Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t R.S.M. 1970 c .L10, s .5. Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t R.S.N. 1970 c .191, s • 3( Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t R.S.O. 1970 c .232, s .3. Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t S.B.C. 1954 c .17, s. 10. Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t S.N.B. 1949 c .20, s. 7. - 136 -Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t R.S.N. 1952 c.295, s.7. Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t S.O. 194 8 c.51, s.4. Manitoba Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t S.M. 1948 c.27, s.7. N a t i o n a l I n d u s t r i a l Recovery A c t 48 S t a t . 198 (1933). N a t i o n a l Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t 49 S t a t . 372 (Supp. 1935) Railway Labour A c t 4 4 S t a t . 57 7 (1926) Trade Union A c t N.S. Laws 1947 c.3, s.7. Trade Union A c t S.S. 1944 (2nd Sess.) c.69, s.6. Trade Union A c t S.N.S. 1972 c.19, S.12(1). Trade Union A c t S.S. 197 2 c.137, s.3. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A c t 41 S t a t . 456 (1920). War Measures A c t R.S.C. 1927 c.206. Cases Acklands L i m i t e d , [1976] 1 Canadian LRBR 71 A l b e r n i E n g i n e e r i n g and S h i p y a r d L t d . , [1977] 1 Canadian LRBR 190 Re Amalgamated A s s o c i a t i o n of S t r e e t E l e c t r i c Railway and Motor  Coach Employees of America D i v i s i o n 101 (1956), 2 DLR (2d) 676 Arrow T r a n s f e r L t d . , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 29 B.C. Equipment Company L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 56/7 4 Bakery and C o n f e c t i o n a r y Workers I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union v. White  Lunch L t d . (1966), 66 CLLC 14,110 Bank of Nova S c o t i a , K i t i m a t (1959), 59 CLLC 18,152 Banks e t a l . v. Canada Labour R e l a t i o n s Board and Canadian  Brotherhood of Railway, T r a n s p o r t and G e n e r a l Workers and  Dominion Canals Employees A s s o c i a t i o n and S t . Lawrence  Seaway A u t h o r i t y (1959), 59 CLLC 15,454 Bay Concrete Block Co. L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 27/75 - 137 -Beechwood C o n s t r u c t i o n L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 32/77 B e l l Telephone Company of Canada (1963), 63 CLLC 16,297 Beverage D i s p e n s e r s and C u l i n a r y Workers Union, L o c a l 835 e t  a l . v. T e r r a Nova Motor Inns L t d . (1974), 74 CLLC 14,253 Black, Swales and Bryson L t d . (1961), 61 CLLC 16,210 Board of E d u c a t i o n f o r the C i t y o f Toronto, OLRB Rep. May 196 5, p.125 Board of E d u c a t i o n f o r the C i t y o f Toronto, OLRB Rep. J u l y 1970, p.. 430 Board of School T r u s t e e s of S c h o o l D i s t r i c t No. 65 (Cowichan), BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 120/74 Board o f S c h o o l T r u s t e e s of School D i s t r i c t No. 68 (Nanaimo), BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 89/7 4 Bond B r o t h e r s Sawmill L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 155/74 Boston Bar Lumber L t d . , [1976] 1 Canadian LRBR 380 The B r i d g e , Young Women's C h r i s t i a n A s s o c i a t i o n , [1975] 2 Canadian LRBR 253 B r i t i s h Columbia F e r r y C o r p o r a t i o n , [1977] 1 Canadian LRBR 526 B r i t i s h Columbia Railway Company, [197 7] 1 Canadian LRBR 309 B r o c k v i l l e G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l (1957), 57 CLLC 18,061 B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e Employees Union, L o c a l Union No. 33 3 (Saskatoon) v. L.R.B. Saskatchewan and Nipawan Union H o s p i t a l  Board et a l . (1970), 70 CLLC 14,002 B u t l e r T i r e L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 144/74 Canadian B r o a d c a s t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n e t a l . (1966), 66 CLLC 16,081 Canadian C e l l u l o s e , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 24/77 Canadian I m p e r i a l Bank of Commerce, [1977] 2 Canadian LRBR 99 Canadian N a t i o n a l Railway Co. (1970), 70 CLLC 16,019 Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corp. (1970), 70 CLLC 16,003 Canadian P a c i f i c Railway Co. (1952), 52 CLLC 16,623 Canada F o u n d r i e s and F o r g i n g s L t d . (1961), 61 CLLC 16,203 - 138 -Re Canada Labour R e l a t i o n s Board and T r a n s a i r L t d . e t a l . (1976) , 67 DLR (3d) 421 ' ~ Canex P l a c e r L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 91/74 Car i b o o Memorial H o s p i t a l , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 418 C a r w i l T r a n s p o r t L t d . (1952), 52 CLLC 16,617 C a u l f i e l d Burns and Gibson L t d . , OLRB Rep. May 1966, p.115 C e n t r a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n and S e c u r i t y Agency L t d . , [1978] 2 Canadian LRBR 91 Chimo S t r u c t u r e s L t d . , [1976] 1 Canadian LRBR 37 3 C i t y o f C a l g a r y (1964), 64 CLLC 16,021 C i t y o f C a l g a r y (1965), 65 CLLC 16,026 Clearwood Lumber Co. L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 74/77 C o l l e g e o f New C a l e d o n i a and P r i n c e George R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 24/74 Columbia B i t h u l i t h i c L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 56/74 Commonwealth H o l i d a y Inns of Canada L t d . (1970), 70 CLLC 16,026 C o n s t r u c t i o n Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 59/74 C o r p o r a t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 1 C o r p o r a t i o n o f the D i s t r i c t o f Burnaby, [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 128 C o r p o r a t i o n o f the D i s t r i c t of Saanich, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 73/76 Cranbrook and D i s t r i c t H o s p i t a l and S e l k i r k C o l l e g e , [1975] 1 Canadian LRBR 42 Cranbrook and D i s t r i c t H o s p i t a l , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 82/76 Cunningham Drug S t o r e s L t d . v. Labour R e l a t i o n s Board and A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia and the  R e t a i l C l e r k s ' Union L o c a l 1518, [1973] S.C.R. 256 D e l t a H o s p i t a l , [197 8] 1 Canadian LRBR 356 Denver Tramway Corp.,INLRB 64 (1934) D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l C o - o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n L i m i t e d (1962), 62 CLLC 16,258 - 139 -Dominion (Vancouver) Motors L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n . N o . 102/74 Empire S t e v e d o r i n g L t d . (1963), 63 CLLC 16,300 Essex H o s p i t a l , OLRB Rep. November 1967, p. 716 F o n t h i l l Lumber L t d . (1964), 64 CLLC 16,305 Fownes C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. L t d . , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 343 F. & W. Wholesale L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 1/77 Goodyear S e r v i c e S t o r e s (1965),• 65 CLLC 16,018 G r e a t e r Vancouver H o t e l Employers A s s o c i a t i o n , [1976] 2 Canadian LRBR 218 G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Labour R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 74/76 Hayes P a c i f i c S a l e s , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 104/74 Houde E n g i n e e r i n g Corp., INLRB 35 (1934) H.Y. L o u i e Company L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 86/74 In the Matter of a C o u n c i l of Trade-Unions Under S e c t i o n 57 of  the Labour Code a t the B.C. Railway Co., [1977] 1 Canadian LRBR 309 Insurance C o r p o r a t i o n o f B r i t i s h Columbia, [1974] 1.Canadian LRBR 403 I n t e r - C i t y Express L t d . , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 471 Intermountain I n d u s t r i e s L t d . , [197 5] 1 Canadian LRBR 257 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f M a c h i n i s t s e t a l . v. Atcheson,  Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, 2 Dec. U.S.R.L. Board 87 (1921) I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of U n i t e d Brewery, F l o u r , C e r e a l , S o f t Drink and D i s t i l l e r y Workers of America v. Coca-Cola L i m i t e d , OLRB Rep. June 1968, p.264 Jones, S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n v e r s u s S t a b i l i t y i n Labour R e l a t i o n s (1959-60),558 Mich. L.R. 313 K e l l y Douglas Co. L t d . , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 77 Kenora Motor Products L t d . , OLRB Rep. October 1966, p.540 Kent T i l e and Marble Co. L t d . (1961), 61 CLLC 16,204 - 140 -K i n n a i r d ' s Motor H o t e l , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 145/74 Labour R e l a t i o n s Board of B.C. v. O l i v e r C o - o p e r a t i v e Growers  Exchange (1962), 62 CLLC 15,428 Labour R e l a t i o n s Board of B.C. and A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r B.C. •and R e t a i l , Wholesale and Dept. S t o r e Union, L o c a l 58 0 v.  Canada Safeway L t d . (1953), 53 CLLC 15,058 Labour R e l a t i o n s Board of B.C. and A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r B.C. e t •al v. Tr a d e r s S e r v i c e L t d . (1958), 15 DLR (2d) 305 La Commission des R e l a t i o n s O u v r i e r e s de l a P r o v i n c e de Quebec  v. B u r l i n g t o n M i l l s H o s i e r y Co. of Canada and U n i t e d T e x t i l e  Workers of America, L o c a l 311, [1964] S.C.R. 342 Le S y n d i c a t C a t h o l i q u e des Employees de Magasins de Quebec Inc.  v. La Compagnie Paquet L t e e (1959), 18 DLR (2d) 346 Lega F a b r i c a t i n g , [1977] 1 Canadian LRBR 389 Mannix Co. L t d . (1962), 62 CLLC 16,222 McCoy Bros. L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 9/77 M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e Insurance Co. v. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union of  Op e r a t i n g E n g i n e e r s , L o c a l 796 e t a l . (1970), 11 DLR (3d) 336 Mon t r e a l Newspaper G u i l d , L o c a l 111 v. L.R.B. (Que.) and  Gazette P a i n t i n g Company L i m i t e d , [1965] B.R. 753 N a r c o t i c A d d i c t i o n S e r v i c e s of the Vancourer Resources Board, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 7/77 Noranda Mines L i m i t e d v. U n i t e d S t e e l w o r k e r s of America and  Kenneth A. Smith and The Labour R e l a t i o n s Board of the  P r o v i n c e of Saskatchewan, [1969] S.C.R. 898 Nor t h e r n E l e c t r i c Company L i m i t e d , OLRB Rep. March 1969, p.1263 Ocean C o n s t r u c t i o n S u p p l i e s N o r t h e r n L i m i t e d , [1976] 1 Canadian LRBR 175 Okanagan Telephone Company, [1977] 2 Canadian LRBR 422 O l i v e t t i Canada L i m i t e d , [197 5] 1 Canadian LRBR 60 P a c i f i c Northwest C o - o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n , [1976] 2 Canadian LRBR 433 P a c i f i c Press L t d . , [1975] 1 Canadian LRBR 193 P a c i f i c Press L t d . , [1977] 1 Canadian LRBR 342 - 141 -Pembina Mountain Clays. L i m i t e d (1955), 55 CLLC 18,022 P e n i n s u l a Bookbinding L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 26/77 The Queen (Ex P a r t e M u n i c i p a l S p r a y i n g and C o n t r a c t i n g Ltd.) v.  Labour R e l a t i o n s Board (Nova S c o t i a ) e t a l . , [1955] 2 DLR 681 Ramage C o n s t r u c t i o n L t d . , [1975] 2 Canadian LRBR 160 Regina v. A l b e r t a Board of I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s e t a l . Stedelbaun C h e v r o l e t Oldsmobile L t d . (1968), 68 CLLC 14,135 R e l i a n c e Lumber Co. L t d . , [1975] 1 Canadian LRBR 101 Rempel Bros. Concrete L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 70/76 Robinson, L i t t l e and Company L t d . , [1975] 2 Canadian LRBR 81 Royal I n l a n d H o s p i t a l , [1977] 1 Canadian LRBR 466 Royal J u b i l e e H o s p i t a l , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 148/7 4 S t . P a u l ' s H o s p i t a l , [1976] 2 Canadian LRBR 161 S t . V i n c e n t ' s H o s p i t a l , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 363 Schechter P o u l t r y Corp. v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 295 U.S. 443 (1935) Shereton Brock H o t e l (1961), 61 CLLC 16,205 Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 525 Simpson Sears L i m i t e d (1956), 56 CLLC 18,028 Soo S e c u r i t y Motorways L t d . (1974) , 74 CLLC 16,019 Spools Lumber and B u i l d i n g Supply L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 106/74 Standard Bus C o n t r a c t i n g , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 22/74 S t a i r D o l l M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. L t d . , OLRB Rep. January 1967, p.765 S y n d i c a t g e n e r a l du cinema de l a t e l e v i s i o n v. Canadian  B r o a d c a s t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n e t a l . (1968), 68 CLLC 16,036 S y n d i c a t N a t i o n a l des Employees des Usi n e s des Chemins de Fer , v. Canadian P a c i f i c Railway Company et a l . (1967), 67 CLLC 16,001 Teamsters, C h a u f f e r s , Warehousemen and H e l p e r s L o c a l Union 91  e t a l . v. Domtar L t d . T r u c k i n g D i v i s i o n ; U n i t e d Paperworkers;  I n t e r n a t i o n a l Brotherhood of Pulp Workers (1970), 70 CLLC 16,022 - 142 -T a h s i s Company L i m i t e d , Gold R i v e r D i v i s i o n , [1977] 2 Canadian LRBR 4 52 ~ Toronto E l e c t r i c Commissioners v. S n i d e r , [1925] 2 DLR 5 . Town of Smithers, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 80/7 4 Township of Markham, OLRB Rep. August 1969> p.592 Trade of Locomotive E n g i n e e r s , [197 6] 1 Canadian LRBR 3 61 T r i m b l e and Sons L t d . (1971), 71 CLLC 16,042 T r u c k e r s , Cartagemen, C o n s t r u c t i o n and B u i l d i n g M a t e r i a l s  Employees, L o c a l 362, C a l g a r y v. C i t y Cab Co. L t d . , 67 CLLC 16,005 U n i t e d S t e e l w o r k e r s of America, L o c a l 1005 v. S t e e l Co. of  Canada L t d . , [1944] 2 DLR 583 ' — U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 127/74 U n i v e r s i t y of Western O n t a r i o , OLRB Rep. December 1972, p.1038 Usar.co L i m i t e d , OLRB Rep. September 1967, 526 Vancouver C i t y C o l l e g e , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 298 Vernon Paving L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 19/76 V i c t o r i a G eneral H o s p i t a l , [1975] 2 Canadian LRBR 3 4 V i t o S t e e l and Barge C o n s t r u c t i o n L t d . , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 109 Wadena Union H o s p i t a l (1969), 69 CLLC 16,052 Wagner E n g i n e e r i n g , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 436 Western Canada S t e e l L i m i t e d , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 22 Western Canada S t e e l L i m i t e d , [1976] 1 Canadian LRBR 19 Western Canadian Greyhound L i n e s L i m i t e d , D.L.S. 7-563 White Spot L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 80/75 White Spot L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 83/7 4 Woodward's F u r n i t u r e F a i r , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 5/74 Woodward St o r e s (Vancouver) L t d . , [1975] 1 Canadian LRBR 114 Workmen's Compensation Board, [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 413 - 143 -W.S. T y l e r Co. of Canada L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 6/74 W.S. T y l e r Co. of Canada L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 31/74 Yarrows L i m i t e d , [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 489 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077615/manifest

Comment

Related Items