UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Employer free speech during organization drives and decertification campaigns McPhillips, David C. 1979

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A64 M36.pdf [ 7.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077635.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077635-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077635-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077635-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077635-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077635-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077635-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077635-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077635.ris

Full Text

EMPLOYER FREE SPEECH DURING ORGANIZATION DRIVES AND DECERTIFICATION CAMPAIGNS by DAVID C. McPHILLIPS B.A. (Hons), U n i v e r s i t y o f Mon t r e a l M.B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Western O n t a r i o L.L.B., M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS i n TEE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (frHE FACULTY OF LAW ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d ,A THESIS THE THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1979 0 Davi<$ Clark M e P h i l l i p s ', 19J?9 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f / - ^ I A V  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5 ( i i ) ABSTRACT One o f the most c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e s w i t h i n the a r e a o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s i s the r i g h t o f an employer t o e x p r e s s h i s o p i n i o n s d i r e c t l y to h i s employees c o n c e r n i n g u n i o n s . T h i s d o c t r i n e o f " E m p l o y e r Free Speech" has been the s u b j e c t o f much debate and was the s u b j e c t o f amendments t o the Labour Code i n B.C. i n 1977. T h i s s t u d y w i l l examine how t h i s p r o b l e m i s d e a l t w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia and use f o r c o m p a r i s o n p u r p o s e s t he j u r i s d i c t i o n s o f O n t a r i o , Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The f i r s t c h a p t e r examines the p h i l o s o p h y b e h i n d the d o c t r i n e and the a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h f r e e speech i n the Labour S t a t u t e s o f the f o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . A b r i e f o v e r v i e w o f o t h e r u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s w i l l a l s o be i n c l u d e d t o put our d i s c u s s i o n i n c o n t e x t . The s e c o n d c h a p t e r o f the t h e s i s w i l l d e a l w i t h a c t i o n s t a k e n dur-i n g an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign. The g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d i n each j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d and th e n a r e v i e w o f s p e c i f i c k i n d s o f b e h a v i o u r s w i l l be u n d e r t a k e n . T h i s p a r t w i l l t hen d e a l w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e 1977 Amendments t o the B r i t i s h Columbia Code. C h a p t e r t h r e e w i l l f o c u s on employer i n t e r f e r e n c e d u r i n g t he d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s and compare the d i f f e r i n g p h i l o s o p h i e s o f the f o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The f i n a l s e c t i o n o f the t h e s i s c o n t a i n s t he o b s e r v a t i o n s and recom-mendations o f t h e a u t h o r . ( i i i ) CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. THE DOCTRINE OF EMPLOYER FREE SPEECH A. P h i l o s o p h y 1 B. U n f a i r Labour P r a c t i c e i n Ge n e r a l . . . . 4 C. Code P r o v i s i o n s R e l a t e d t o Employer Free Speech 8 1. C o e r c i o n and I n t i m i d a t i o n 8 2. I n t e r f e r e n c e 9 CHAPTER I I . ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPAIGNS A. G e n e r a l Approaches i n Each J u r i s d i c t i o n . 12 1. U n i t e d S t a t e s 12 2. O n t a r i o 22 3. Canada 25 4. B r i t i s h Columbia - P r e v i o u s L e g i s l a t i o n 28 B. S p e c i f i c B e h a v i o u r 31 1. Harassment, I n t i m i d a t i o n and S u r v e i l l a n c e 32 2. Promises o f Improved C o n d i t i o n s o f Employment 35 3. T h r e a t s o f R e p r i s a l s 36 4. I n t e r r o g a t i o n o f Employees 41 5. I n s t i t u t i o n o f a P e t i t i o n 44 6. The H o l d i n g o f a M e e t i n g 45 7. Propaganda 49 8. Movies 52 ( i v ) Page CHAPTER I I . ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPAIGNS (CONTINUED) 9. Time R e s t r i c t i o n s 54 10. C o n c l u s i o n s 56 C. Remedies 57 1. Ge n e r a l 57 2. Cease & D e s i s t O r d e r 58 3. O r d e r i n g o f a R e p r e s e n t a t i o n Vote . . 60 4. C o r r e c t i v e A c t i o n . 61 5. Make Whole Remedy 64 6. A u t o m a t i c C e r t i f i c a t i o n 68 D. 1977 Amendments t o the Labour Code o f B r i t i s h Columbia 80 CHAPTER I I I . DECERTIFICATION A. I n t r o d u c t i o n 84 B. American Approach . 84 C. O n t a r i o 88 D. Canada 94 E. B r i t i s h Columbia 95 CHAPTER IV. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS A. G e n e r a l 102 B. Burden o f P r o o f 103 C. R e s t r i c t i n g the S t y l e o f Communication . 105 D. E x t e n s i o n s o f t h e P r i n c i p l e o f C o r r e c -t i v e A c t i o n 110 (v) Page CHAPTER IV. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS (CONTINUED) E. Use o f A u t o m a t i c C e r t i f i c a t i o n 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY' 113 APPENDICES- I. U n f a i r Labour P r a c t i c e P r o v i s i o n s . . . . 122 I I . Remedial S e c t i o n s 137 I I I . 1977 Amendments t o S e c t i o n 3 o f Labour Code o f B.C 148 ( v i ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e t o thank 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 p a t i e n c e , thoroughness and t h o u g h t f u l n e s s t h r o u g h o u t the time o f the work on t h i s t h e s i s . H i s c o n t r i b u t i o n s were both h e l p f u l and i n s t r u c t i v e . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank P r o f e s s o r Jim M a c l n t y r e , V i c e - C h a i r m a n , B r i t i s h Columbia Labour R e l a t i o n s Board (on l e a v e from the F a c u l t y o f Law, U.B.C.) and the f a c u l t y o f the law s c h o o l 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 Ray H e r b e r t . I would a l s o l i k e to thank my c o l l e a g u e s i n the F a c u l t y o f Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r t h e i r h e l p and u n d e r s t a n d i n g d u r i n g t h i s endeavour. F i n a l l y , I wish t o thank my p a r e n t s f o r always b e i n g t h e r e . -1-CHAPTER I The D o c t r i n e o f Employer Free Speech , A. P h i l o s o p h y In a democracy, one o f the most c h e r i s h e d freedoms i s t h a t o f freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n . I t i s i n many ways the c o r n e r s t o n e upon which o u r s o c i e t y i s b u i l t and i t has been i n s c r i b e d i n some o f o u r most s a c r e d docu-ments; i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s t h i s r i g h t i s e n s h r i n e d i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n by way o f the F i r s t Amendment; i n Canada, i t i s s e t o u t i n the B i l l o f R i g h t s . The for m e r d e c l a r e s t h a t "Congress s h a l l make no law ... a b r i d g i n g t h e freedom o f speech The l a t t e r d e c l a r e s t h a t "There has e x i s t e d and s h a l l c o n t i n u e to e x i s t ... the f o l l o w i n g human r i g h t s and fundamental freedoms, o f speech However, some r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h i s a b s o l u t e freedom do e x i s t i n o u r laws; an i n d i v i d u a l i s r e s t r i c t e d from defaming t he c h a r a c t e r o f a n o t h e r ; a p e r s o n cannot t h r e a t e n a n o t h e r w i t h words; a p e r s o n cannot s h o u t " f i r e " i n a crowded t h e a t r e t o cause a p a n i c . I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s must e x i s t . A b s o l u t e c o n d i t i o n s s i m p l y do n o t f i t a w o r l d i n which humans o p e r a t e . E v e r y t h i n g must be l o o k e d a t w i t h i n the c o n t e x t i n which i t o c c u r s . Nowhere i s t h i s n e c e s s i t y o f a t t e n t i o n t o c o n t e x t so' o b v i o u s as i n i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s . I t i s an a r e a i n which p e o p l e s ' o p i n i o n s a re based on some v e r y deep p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o s i t i o n s ; y e t t h e i r b e h a v i o u r has day to day r a m i f i c a t i o n s . I t i s not o f t e n t h a t o u r p h i l o s o p h i e s are so d i r e c t l y t e s t e d by r e a l i t y . _ 2 -T h i s e n s h r i n e d r i g h t o f freedom o f speech o f t e n f i n d s i t s e l f i n c o n f l i c t w i t h a n o t h e r freedom which has r e a l l y become r e c o g n i z e d o n l y i n t h i s c e n t u r y , t h a t i s , the freedom o f a s s o c i a t i o n . T h i s freedom i s the fundamental p r e m i s e upon which o u r Labour Codes i s w r i t t e n . I t i s w i t h t h i s r i g h t c l e a r l y i n mind t h a t one must r e a d the p r o v i s i o n s o f o u r l a b o u r s t a t u t e s . They a r e d e s i g n e d t o g i v e e f f e c t and meaning to the r i g h t t o o r g a n i z e . I t i s a r i g h t which has been r e c o g n i z e d by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Labour O r g a n i z a t i o n . In A r t i c l e 2 o f i t s 87th C o n v e n t i o n , i t i s e x p l i c i t l y s e t o u t t h a t workers and employers " s h a l l have the r i g h t t o e s t a b l i s h ... and j o i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f t h e i r own c h o o s i n g The p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t o f the d o c t r i n e s o f freedom o f speech and freedom o f a s s o c i a t i o n g i v e s r i s e t o t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h i s p a per which i s , o f c o u r s e , employer f r e e s p e e c h . The extremes o f the two s c h o o l s o f t h o u g h t t a k e e i t h e r t h e view t h a t an employer s h o u l d be a b l e t o say a n y t h i n g he w i s h e s , a t any time and under any c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r the p o s i -t i o n t h a t the freedom o f a s s o c i a t i o n i s so f r a g i l e t h a t employers must be c o m p l e t e l y s i l e n c e d . The most famous j u d i c i a l e x p r e s s i o n o f the attempt t o b a l a n c e t h e s e d o c t r i n e s i s one by Judge L e a r n e d Hand o f the 2nd C i r c u i t C o u r t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The p r i v i l e g e o f " f r e e s p e e c h " , l i k e o t h e r p r i v i l e g e s , i s n o t a b s o l u t e ; i t has i t s s e a s o n s ; a d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y has an a c u t e i n t e r e s t i n i t s p r o t e c t i o n and c a n n o t i n d e e d C o n v e n t i o n (No. 87) C o n c e r n i n g Freedom o f A s s o c i a t i o n and P r o t e c - t i o n o f t h e R i g h t t o O r g a n i z e , Adopted by the G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Labour O r g a n i z a t i o n a t i t s t h i r t y - f i r s t s e s s i o n , San F r a n c i s c o , 9 J u l y 1948. - 3 -be w i t h o u t i t ; b u t i s i s an i n t e r e s t measured by i t s purpose. T h a t purpose i s t o e n a b l e o t h e r s t o make an i n f o r m e d judgment as to what c o n c e r n s them, and ends so f a r as the u t t e r a n c e s do n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o the r e s u l t . Language may s e r v e t o e n l i g h t e n a h e a r e r , though i t a l s o b e t r a y s t h e s p e a k e r ' s f e e l i n g s and d e s i r e s ; b u t the l i g h t i t sheds w i l l be i n some degree c l o u d e d , i f the h e a r e r i s i n h i s power. Arguments by an employer d i r e c t e d to h i s employees have such an a m b i v a l e n t c h a r a c t e r ; they are l e g i t i m a t e enough as s u c h , and pro t a n t o the p r i v i -l e g e o f " f r e e speech" p r o t e c t s them; b u t , so f a r as they a l s o d i s c l o s e h i s w i s h e s , as t h e y g e n e r a l l y do, they have a f o r c e i n d e p e n d e n t o f p e r s u a s i o n . The ( N a t i o n a l Labour R e l a t i o n s ) Board i s v e s t e d w i t h the power to measure t h e s e two f a c t o r s a g a i n s t each o t h e r - words a r e n o t p e b b l e s i n a l i e n j u x t a p o s i t i o n ; they have o n l y a communal e x i s -t e n c e ; and n o t o n l y does the meaning o f each i n t e r p e n e t r a t e the o t h e r , but a l l i n t h e i r a g g r e g a t e t a k e t h e i r p u r p o r t from the s e t t i n g i n which they are used, o f which the r e l a t i o n between the s p e a k e r and t h e h e a r e r i s perhaps the most i m p o r t a n t . What to an o u t s i d e r w i l l be no more than the v i g o r o u s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a c o n v i c t i o n , t o an employee may be the m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f a d e t e r m i n a t i o n which i t i s n o t s a f e t o t h w a r t . The Board must d e c i d e how f a r the second a s p e c t o b l i t e r a t e s the f i r s t . 2 T h i s p r o f o u n d s t a t e m e n t i s a r e c o g n i t i o n o f the d i f f i c u l t y o f b a l a n c i n g t h e s e i n t e r e s t s o f f r e e speech and i n f o r m e d judgment on a p r a c -3 t i c a l l e v e l . There must be an "accommodation o f the employer's c l a i m t o s t a t e i t s c a s e on the one hand, w i t h t h e immunity under t h e Labour R e l a t i o n s s t a t u t e s o f employees and unions from management i n t e r f e r e n c e and i n f l u e n c e 4 on the o t h e r . " In terms o f u n i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h i s b a l a n c e i s c r i t i c a l . In t h i s t h e s i s , we s h a l l examine how v a r i o u s j u r i s d i c t i o n s deal w i t h the problem. 2N.L.R.B. v. Federbush 121 F2d 954. (C.A. 2d C i r ) (1941) a t p. 957. 3 S e e a l s o N a t i o n a l Paper Goods 46 C.L.L.C. p a r . 16, 429 a t 1129, and James v. Commonwealth o f A u s t r a l i a [1963] A.C. 578 a t 627. ^ L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s Law, I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s C e n t r e , Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , 2nd e d i t i o n , 1974, a t p. 2. - 4 -B. U n f a i r Labour P r a c t i c e s i n G e n e r a l In g r a n t i n g the freedom o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o the employees, the Labour Codes t h e r e b y a u t o m a t i c a l l y impose a number o f r e s t r i c t i o n s upon an employer. F o r example, an employer must b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y once a union has a c q u i r e d b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s ; he cannot l o c k o u t h i s employees w i t h o u t m e e t i n g the s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s ; he must n e g o t i a t e a c l a u s e i n the c o l -l e c t i v e agreement f o r the s e t t l e m e n t o f g r i e v a n c e s . These a r e o n l y some o f t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d on an employer but t h e s e a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o demonstrate t h a t h i s a b s o l u t e freedom has been c u r t a i l e d . As one can see from the above examples, u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s can and do o c c u r d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f a u n i o n ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign, d u r i n g c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , d u r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a c o l l e c t i v e agreement and d u r i n g d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a t t e m p t s . T h i s p a p e r w i l l f o c u s on the r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d upon an employer d u r i n g both the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign and the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s . The l a t t e r as we s h a l l see i n P a r t I I I i n v o l v e s many o f the c o n c e p t s c o n t a i n e d i n the d i s c u s s i o n o f the f o r m e r . We w i l l f u r t h e r l i m i t o u r s e l v e s t o a d i s c u s s i o n o f the r e s t r i c t i o n s r e l a t e d to h i s r i g h t o f f r e e speech d u r i n g t h e s e p e r i o d s . However, t o put o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s r i g h t i n t o c o n t e x t , we must b r i e f l y o u t l i n e the o t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n s which are a l s o p l a c e d upon an employer and w h i c h , i n f a c t , f r e q u e n t l y o v e r l a p t h e l i m i t a t i o n on f r e e s p e e c h . These i n c l u d e : (1) The r e f u s a l t o employ an i n d i v i d u a l because he i s a member o f a t r a d e u n i o n . (2) the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t any p e r s o n i n r e g a r d t o employment o r any c o n d i t i o n o f employment because he g i s a t r a d e - u n i o n i s t . (3) the i m p o s i t i o n o f any c o n d i t i o n i n an employment con-t r a c t which r e s t r i c t s h i s r i g h t s t o be a member o f a unio n ( e . g . , " y e l l o w dog" c o n t r a c t s ) . ^ (4) the d i s m i s s a l , d i s c h a r g e , s u s p e n s i o n , t r a n s f e r r i n g , l a y i n g o f f o r d i s c i p l i n i n g o f an employee because he i s a un i o n member o r i s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the p r o m o t i o n , o f o r m a t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r a d e u n i o n . (5) the i n s t i t u t i o n o f a wage i n c r e a s e o r a l t e r a t i o n o f any terms o f employment t o d i s c o u r a g e an employee f r o m q becoming o r c o n t i n u i n g t o be a t r a d e u n i o n member. (6) t he use o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t r i k e b r e a k e r s . ^ Labour Code o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a, SBC, 1973, Ch. 122 (as amended) (B.C. Code), Sec. 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) ; Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t , RSO 1970 C. 232 as amended ( O n t a r i o Code), Sec. 5 8 ( a ) ; Canada Labour Code 1966-67, C. 62 as amended (Canada C o d e ) , Sec. 1 8 4 ( 3 ) ( a ) ; L a b o r Management R e l a t i o n s A c t 1947 61 S t a t . 136 as amended by 73 S t a t . 518 (U.S. Code), Sec. 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) . 6B.C. Code Sec. 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) ; O n t a r i o Code Sec. 5 8 ( a ) ; Canada Code Sec. 1 8 4 ( 3 ) ( a ) ; U.S. Code Sec. 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) -7B.C. Code Sec. 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) ; O n t a r i o Code Sec. 5 8 ( b ) ; Canada Code Sec. 1 8 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) . 8B.C. Code Sec. 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) and ( a ) ; O n t a r i o Code Sec. 5 8 ( c ) ; Canada Code Sec. 1 8 4 ( 3 ) ( c ) , (e) and ( f ) ; U.S. Code Sec. 8 ( a ) ( 4 ) . 9B.C. Code Sec. 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) . 1 0 B . C . Code S e c . 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) . - 6 -(7) t he g i v i n g o f f i n a n c i a l o r any o t h e r s u p p o r t 11 by the employer t o the u n i o n . (8) any a c t i v i t y amounting t o c o e r c i o n o r i n t i m i d a t i o n . ^ As the r e a d e r can r e a d i l y d e t e r m i n e , t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l a g r e e -ment among,! the j u r i s d i c t i o n s as t o the u n d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h i s type o f b e h a v i o u r on the p a r t o f the employer. These a re t h i n g s which an employer 13 s i m p l y cannot do. There i s l e s s agreement i n the a r e a o f freedom o f speech. The q u e s t i o n o f employer f r e e speech evokes many r e s p o n s e s , some o f them based p r i m a r i l y on e m o t i o n , from p e r s o n s on each s i d e o f t h e i s s u e . The arguments i n f a v o u r o f some l i m i t a t i o n on communication would i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : (1) The employee i s i n such an e c o n o m i c a l l y dependent p o s i -t i o n t h a t any communication from t he employer w i l l have an i m p a c t f a r beyond i t s r e a l w e i g h t . F u r t h e r , t he more e m o t i o n a l t he message, the g r e a t e r the e f f e c t . (2) The employee's r i g h t t o a s s o c i a t i o n i s t o t a l l y beyond the c o n c e r n o f the employer as i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a q u e s t i o n t o be r e s o l v e d between t he employee and t h e union o r unions i n v o l v e d . B.C. Code Sees. 3(1) and 50; O n t a r i o Code Sees. 56 and 12; Canada Code Sec. 1 8 4 ( 1 ) ; U.S. Code Sec. 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) . ^ B . C . Code Sees. 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) and 5; O n t a r i o Code Sec. 16; Canada  Code Sec. 186; U.S. Code Sec. 8 ( a ) . 1 Q The r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o Appendix I f o r the complete l i s t o f t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s i n each o f the j u r i s d i c t i o n s . - 7 -(3) The employer has had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o "communicate" w i t h the employee t h r o u g h o u t the employment r e l a t i o n -s h i p and any communication made d u r i n g an o r g a n i z a t i o n o r d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n b i d i s more l i k e l y t o c o n s i s t e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y o f t h r e a t s , promises and the l i k e r a t h e r than r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f r e a l i t y . The arguments put f o r w a r d i n f a v o u r o f an employer's r i g h t t o communicate i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : (1) The employees a r e , a f t e r a l l , employees o f the company and as s u c h , the employer i s v i t a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r w e l f a r e and hence the outcome o f any e v e n t d e a l i n g w i t h t r a d e u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n v o l v e s him d i r e c t l y . (2) The employees s h o u l d be i n f o r m e d o f a l l t h e i r l e g a l r i g h t s and the employer i s i n a p o s i t i o n t o e n s u r e t h a t the union has n o t m i s - i n f o r m e d the employees. In f a c t , i n many c a s e s , the employer i s a c t u a l l y approached by the employees f o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g h i s r i g h t s under the law. (3) The employees have the r i g h t t o a l l " t h e f a c t s " and the employer s h o u l d be i n a p o s i t i o n t o e x p r e s s t h o s e o p i n i o n s which may shed l i g h t on the arguments a g a i n s t u n i o n i z a t i o n i n g e n e r a l . (4) The employer may t r u l y d i s t r u s t o r f e a r u n i o n s and s h o u l d be a b l e t o e x p r e s s t h a t o p i n i o n i n a f r e e s o c i e t y . (5) The employer may f e a r t h a t a union w i l l n o t r e p r e s e n t h i s employees i n a f a i r and j u s t manner and he s h o u l d - 8 -be a b l e t o communicate h i s c o n c e r n s t o the employees. (6) The employer must be i n a p o s i t i o n t o e x p l a i n the economic consequences o f u n i o n i z a t i o n t o the employees i n terms o f c o m p e t i t i v e p o s i t i o n , l o n g - r u n growth and the f i r m ' s c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e . These consequences may i n f a c t f a l l upon the workers o r the company o r b o t h . G i v e n t h i s b ackround o f the arguments r e l a t e d t o employer f r e e s p e e c h , l e t us now t u r n o u r a t t e n t i o n t o the s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e Labour Codes o f the f o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . C. Code P r o v i s i o n s R e l a t e d t o Employer Free Speech In terms o f r e s t r i c t i n g e mployer f r e e s p e e c h , t h e r e are two t y p e s o f p r o v i s i o n s which can be i n v o k e d . The f i r s t i s a r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t v a r i o u s k i n d s o f c o e r c i o n and i n t i m i d a t i o n ; the second d e a l s w i t h g e n e r a l i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h u n i o n a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s o u r i n t e n t i o n here i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o m e r e l y s e t o u t the e x i s t i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f the Codes and t o save o u r a n a l y s i s and d i s c u s s i o n f o r l a t e r i n the p a p e r . (1) C o e r c i o n and I n t i m i d a t i o n In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , an employer i s n o t p e r m i t t e d to do a n y t h i n g which w i l l i n t i m i d a t e o r c o e r c e an employee from b e i n g a member o f a union o r i n e x e r c i s i n g any o f h i s r i g h t s under a Labour Code. T h i s type o f p r o -v i s i o n i s c o n t a i n e d i n each o f t h e o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . ^ '^B.C. Code Sees. 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) and 5; O n t a r i o Code Sec. 61; Canada  Code Sec. 186; U.S. Code S e c . 8 ( a ) . - 9 -T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t c o e r c i o n and i n t i m i d a t i o n a p p l i e s t o any p e r s o n , employer o r uni o n under the B r i t i s h Columbia, O n t a r i o and Canadian s t a t u t e s . Any a c t i v i t y , i n c l u d i n g s p e e c h e s , which i s o p e n l y c o e r c i v e o r i n t i m i d a t i n g w i l l be i n v i o l a t i o n o f the a c t s . The type o f b e h a v i o u r which has been p r o h i b i t e d as i n t i m i d a t i o n o r c o e r c i o n i s a l s o n o r m a l l y found t o be i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f the o t h e r p r o -v i s i o n (where t h e s e e x i s t ) a g a i n s t i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the a f f a i r s o f a u n i o n , e t c . Even t he o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s which seem t o g i v e t h e employer some freedom t o e x p r e s s h i m s e l f , c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s r i g h t does n o t ex-te n d t o c o e r c i o n , i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t s o r r e p r i s a l s , promises o r undue i n f l u e n c e . ^ (2) I n t e r f e r e n c e There a r e a l s o p r o h i b i t i o n s a g a i n s t i n t e r f e r e n c e , i n g e n e r a l , i n the v a r i o u s a c t s and i t i s i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e t h a t t h e j u r i s -1 c d i c t i o n s have s e t o u t t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l p h i l o s o p h i e s . In o r d e r f o r t h e r e t o be a v i o l a t i o n o f one o f t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the i n t e r f e r e n c e may r e s u l t f r o m e i t h e r t h e s u b s t a n c e o f any remarks o r from t he c o n t e x t i n which they a re made. The r e s t r i c t i o n s a re worded as b a s i c a l l y p r o h i b i t i n g any p a r t i c i -p a t i o n o r i n t e r f e r e n c e by the employer i n the f o r m a t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the t r a d e u n i o n . O n t a r i o Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t S. 56; U.S. Labour Code S. 8 ( c ) . 1 6 B . C . Labour Code Sees. 3 ( 1 ) , 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) , O n t a r i o Labour R e l a t i o n s  A c t Sees. 56 and 58; Canada Labour Code Sec. 1 8 4 ( 1 ) ; U.S. Labour Code Sec. 8 ( a ) and ( c ) . - 10 -T h i s i s , i n e f f e c t , the w o rding o f S e c t i o n 184 o f the Canada Labour Code. The O n t a r i o A c t , on the o t h e r hand, a l t h o u g h c o n t a i n i n g a v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l p r o v i s i o n , has an a d d i t i o n a l c l a u s e t o the e f f e c t t h a t " n o t h i n g i n t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be deemed t o d e p r i v e an employer o f h i s freedom t o e x p r e s s h i s views so l o n g as he does not use c o e r c i o n , i n t i m i -d a t i o n , t h r e a t s , promises o r undue i n f l u e n c e . " ( S e c . 56) The American N a t i o n a l L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s A c t s i m i l a r l y p r o h i b i t s i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h , r e s t r a i n t o f o r c o e r c i o n upon employees but "The e x p r e s -s i n g o f any v iews, arguments o r o p i n i o n o r the d i s s e m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , whether i n w r i t t e n , p r i n t e d , g r a p h i c o r v i s u a l f o r m s h a l l n o t c o n s t i t u t e o r be e v i d e n c e o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e under any p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s A c t i f such e x p r e s s i o n c o n t a i n s no t h r e a t o f r e p r i s a l o r f o r c e o r p romise o f b e n e f i t . " ( S e c . 8) When the B r i t i s h Columbia L a b o u r Code came i n t o f o r c e i n 1974, i t c o n t a i n e d two s e c t i o n s e x p l i c i t l y d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s i s s u e . The f i r s t s e c -t i o n ( S e c . 3 ( 1 ) ) c o n t a i n e d the t r a d i t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t any i n t e r -f e r e n c e w i t h o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f o r m a t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r a d e u n i o n . However, the Code a l s o c o n t a i n e d a f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h the " l a w f u l c o n c e r t e d a c t i o n by employees f o r the purpose o f o b t a i n i n g c o l l e c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " . ( S e c . 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) . As we s h a l l see l a t e r i n the p a p e r , the combined e f f e c t o f t h e s e two p r o -v i s i o n s was s u b s t a n t i a l . In 1977, the S o c i a l C r e d i t government d e l e t e d the s e c o n d o f t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s (Sec. 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) and i n f a c t added a s e c t i o n t o the e f f e c t t h a t n o t h i n g i n the A c t s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as t o l i m i t the r i g h t o f an employer " t o communicate t o an employee a s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t o f o p i n i o n r e a s o n a b l y h e l d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the employer's b u s i n e s s . " ( S e c . 3(2) (g) . - 11 -T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l now p r o c e e d t o an e x a m i n a t i o n o f each o f the j u r i s d i c t i o n s f o r the g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s employed i n a s s e s s i n g employer b e h a v i o u r d u r i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign and then go on t o d e a l w i t h t h e i r t r e a t m e n t o f s p e c i f i c t y p e s o f b e h a v i o u r . - 12 -CHAPTER II O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Campaigns A. G e n e r a l Approaches i n Each J u r i s d i c t i o n (1) U n i t e d S t a t e s 1 7 The d o c t r i n e o f employer f r e e speech has undergone many changes i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The p h i l o s o p h i e s o f t h e governments and the N a t i o n a l Labour R e l a t i o n s Boards have changed o v e r time and hence i n d e s c r i b i n g the American p o s i t i o n , a s l i g h t l y h i s t o r i c a l a p p r oach i s r e q u i r e d . The F i r s t Amendment c e r t a i n l y has a f f e c t e d how the C o u r t s and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t , t h e N a t i o n a l Labour R e l a t i o n s Board (N.L.R.B.) have i n t e r -p r e t e d the v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s o f the Wagner A c t (1935) and the subs e q u e n t amendments i n the T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t (1947). D u r i n g the p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e enactment o f the Wagner A c t (1935-41), t he Board h e l d t h a t v i r t u a l l y any s t a t e m e n t by an The r e a d e r i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e f e r r e d t o the m a t e r i a l l i s t e d below f o r c o n c i s e d i s c u s s i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h t he h i s t o r y o f N.L.R.B. d e c i s i o n s : i ) A d e l l , B., "Employer F r e e Speech", 1965 (A) A l b e r t a Law  Review 11 i i ) Browne and Sachs, "Caveat A g a i n s t B r i n k m a n s h i p " , (1970) 15 V i l l a n o v a Law Review 588 i i i ) T a y l o r , B. J . & Whitney, F., L a b o r R e l a t i o n s Law, Second E d i t i o n , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , New J e r s e y , 1975. i v ) C.L.R.B. d e c i s i o n i n C i t y and Cou n t r y R a t i o [1975] (1) Canadian L.R.B.R. 1. - 13 -employer would amount t o c o e r c i o n and t h e r e b y be i n v i o l a t i o n o f the A c t . The p r e v a i l i n g s e n t i m e n t was t h a t which was e x p r e s s e d by J u s t i c e Hand i n the Federbush case which was q u o t e d above. The i s s u e o f employer f r e e speech d i d n o t r e a c h the U.S. Supreme 1 g C o u r t however u n t i l the V i r g i n i a & E l e c t r i c Power case o f 1941 and when i t d i d , the C o u r t s t r u c k a blow f o r f r e e s peech and e s t a b l i s h e d some p a r a -meters as to what would be p e r m i t t e d . The C o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were many e f f e c t i v e methods both v o c a l and n o n v o c a l by which an employer c o u l d i n f l u e n c e h i s employees and t h a t employees are p a r t i c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e as even " s l i g h t s u g g e s t i o n s as t o the employer's c h o i c e between u n i o n s may have t e l l i n g e f f e c t s upon men who know the consequences o f i n c u r r i n g t h a t 19 employer's s t r o n g d i s p l e a s u r e " . However, the Supreme C o u r t d i d d e c l a r e t h a t the employers had a r i g h t t o speak which was g u a r a n t e e d by the c o n s t i t u t i o n . The employer had the r i g h t t o t a k e any s i d e o f a c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e he w i s h e d and mere e x p r e s s i o n o f o p i n i o n , s t a n d i n g a l o n e and n o t c o e r c i v e i n i t s e l f , was e n t i t l e d t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l immunity. The C o u r t m a i n t a i n e d t h a t an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e e x i s t e d o n l y i f t he e mployer, i n the t o t a l i t y o f h i s c o n d u c t , had behaved c o e r c i v e l y . I s o l a t e d i n c i d e n c e s o f e x p r e s s i o n o f o p i n i o n were n o t p e r se p r o h i b i t e d . The N.L.R.B., h a v i n g been somewhat r e s t r i c t e d by t h i s " t o t a l i t y o f c o n d u c t " d o c t r i n e , i n s t i t u t e d the " c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e " d o c t r i n e i n the C l a r k 20 B r o t h e r s c a s e i n 1946. In t h a t c a s e , the employer had a d d r e s s e d the ;N.L.R.B. 'v. V i r g i n i a & E l e c t r i c Power Co. 314 U.S. 469 (1941). I b i d . , a t p. 477. 70 N.L.R.B. 802 (1946). - 1-4 -employees on w o r k i n g time c o n c e r n i n g the i l l s o f unions and had i n v o k e d the p r o t e c t i o n o f the F i r s t Amendment. The N.L.R.B. h e l d : "The e x p r e s s i n g o f any views, argument, o r o p i n i o n , o r the d i s s e m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , c o n t r o l l e d t h e manner i n which the employees were to occupy t h e i r t i m e . The o n l y way the employees c o u l d have a v o i d e d h e a r i n g the s peeches would have been f o r them t o l e a v e the p r e m i s e s , which they were no t a t l i b e r t y t o do d u r i n g w o r k i n g hours ... The compulsory a u d i e n c e was n o t , as the r e c o r d shows, the o n l y avenue a v a i l a b l e t o the r e s p o n d e n t f o r con-v e y i n g t o the employees i t s o p i n i o n o f s e l f - o r g a n i z a -t i o n . I t was n o t an i n s e p a r a b l e p a r t o f the speech, any more than m i ght be t h e a c t o f a s p e a k e r i n h o l d i n g p h y s i c a l l y the p e r s o n whom he a d d r e s s e s i n o r d e r t o a s s u r e h i s a t t e n t i o n ... we must p e r f o r m o u r f u n c t i o n o f p r o t e c t i n g employees a g a i n s t t h a t use o f the employer's economic power which i s i n h e r e n t i n h i s a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l t h e i r a c t i o n s d u r i n g w o rking hours."2' I t was a t t h i s time t h a t the government d e c i d e d t o s t e p back i n t o the l a b o u r scene and i n the T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t (which amended the Wagner  A c t ) , Congress not o n l y i n c r e a s e d the r e s t r i c t i o n s on v a r i o u s t y p e s o f u n i o n b e h a v i o u r but i t e x p l i c i t l y s e t o u t t o i n s u r e t h a t the r i g h t o f f r e e speech was p r o p e r l y p r o t e c t e d . In d o i n g s o , i t p a s s e d i n t o law S e c t i o n 8 ( c ) which had the e f f e c t o f u n d e r m i n i n g the " c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e " t h e o r y which the N.L.R.B. had j u s t i n s t i t u t e d i n the C l a r k B r o t h e r s c a s e . S e c t i o n 8 ( c ) r e a d s : The e x p r e s s i n g o f any v i e w s , argument, o r o p i n i o n , o r the d i s s e m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , whether i n w r i t t e n , p r i n t e d , g r a p h i c , o r v i s u a l form, s h a l l n o t c o n s t i -t u t e o r be e v i d e n c e o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e under any o f the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s A c t , i f such e x p r e s s i o n c o n t a i n s no t h r e a t o f r e p r i s a l o r f o r c e o r promise o f b e n e f i t . I b i d . , a t p. 804-5. - 15 -The r i g h t o f speech was then p r o t e c t e d by the C o n s t i t u t i o n and S e c t i o n 8 ( c ) o f the T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t and t h e s e s t a t u t o r y s a f e g u a r d s have remained up t o the p r e s e n t time. The N.L.R.B., however, remained undaunted. In o r d e r t o keep some c o n t r o l o v e r e m p l o y e r s ' s p e e c h e s , the Board d e v e l o p e d the c o n c e p t o f " l a b o r a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " . In t h e G e n e r a l Shoe c a s e , the Board i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n e l e c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , i t s f u n c t i o n was " t o p r o v i d e a l a b o r a t o r y ' i n which an e x p e r i m e n t may be c o n d u c t e d , under c o n d i t i o n s as n e a r l y i d e a l as 23 p o s s i b l e " i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n what the t r u e wishes o f the employees were. In cases where such c o n d i t i o n s d i d n o t e x i s t , a n o t h e r e l e c t i o n would be o r d e r e d . The e f f e c t o f t h i s new d o c t r i n e , t h e n , was t o remove "the s e t t i n g a s i d e o f e l e c t i o n s due to the i n a b i l i t y o f the employees t o e x e r c i s e t h e i r f r e e c h o i c e " from the scope o f S e c t i o n 8 ( c ) o f the A c t . The n e x t s t e p f o r the N.L.R.B. was taken i n the Bonwit T e l l e r c a s e w h e r e i n the " c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e " d o c t r i n e was g i v e n new l i f e . In t h a t c a s e , the employer m a i n t a i n e d a n o - s o l i c i t a t i o n r u l e ( i . e . , no u n i o n o r g a n i z e r s on company premises a t any time) but b e f o r e the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e , the company's p r e s i d e n t had d e l i v e r e d an a n t i - u n i o n a d d r e s s t o the employees. The N.L.R.B. h e l d t h a t i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t the union equal t i m e , the com-pany had a c t e d i n a manner t h a t the " s t a t u t e does n o t i n t e n d us t o l i c e n s e " ' 77 N.L.R.B. 124 (1948). I b i d . , a t p. 127. 96 N.L.R.B. 608 (1951) a t p. 612. - 16 -F u r t h e r m o r e , they n o t e d : There i s , i n a d d i t i o n , an even more fundamental c o n s i d e r a t i o n - w h o l l y a p a r t from the Respondent's d i s p a r a t e use o f the n o - s o l i c i t a t i o n r u l e - which j u s t i f i e s t h e r e s u l t we r e a c h . We b e l i e v e t h a t the r i g h t o f employees, g u a r a n t e e d by S e c t i o n 7 o f the A c t , f r e e l y to s e l e c t o r r e j e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by a l a b o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y encompasses ' the r i g h t to h ear both s i d e s o f t h e s t o r y under c i r c u m s t a n c e s which r e a s o n a b l y a p p r o x i m a t e e q u a l i t y . The C l a r k B r o t h e r s d o c t r i n e had thus r e t u r n e d i n a more modern g u i s e . However, the emphasis was once a g a i n t o swing t o u n f e t t e r e d f r e e -dom o f speech. In a number o f c a s e s d u r i n g the Eisenhower a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t he N.L.R.B. came down on the s i d e o f an employer who had o p e n l y e x p r e s s e d h i s a n t i - u n i o n f e e l i n g s . In a p a r t i c u l a r l y e x p l i c i t manner, the Board e x p r e s s e d i t s p o s i t i o n i n the L i v i n g s t o n e S h i r t c a s e : A b a s i c p r i n c i p l e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g any c o n s i d e r a -t i o n o f t h i s q u e s t i o n i s t h a t S e c t i o n 8 ( c ) o f the A c t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t s us. from f i n d i n g t h a t an u n c o e r c i v e s p e e c h , whenever d e l i v e r e d by the employer, c o n s t i t u t e s an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c -t i c e . T h e r e f o r e , any attempt to r a t i o n a l i z e a p r o s c r i p t i o n a g a i n s t an employer who makes a p r i v i l e g e d speech must n e c e s s a r i l y be r e s t e d on the t h e o r y t h a t the employer's v i c e i s n o t i n making the speech but i n d e n y i n g the u n i o n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e p l y on company p r e m i s e s . But t o say t h a t c o n d u c t which i s p r i v i l e g e d g i v e s r i s e t o an o b l i g a t i o n on the p a r t o f the employer t o a c c o r d an equal o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the union t o r e p l y under l i k e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , on p a i n o f b e i n g f o u n d g u i l t y o f u n l a w f u l c o n d u c t , seems t o us an u n t e n a b l e b a s i s f o r a f i n d i n g o f u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s ... [A]n employer's p r e m i s e s are t h e n a t u r a l forum f o r him j u s t as the u n i o n h a l l i s the i n v i o l a b l e forum f o r the u n i o n t o assemble and a d d r e s s employees . . . 7 I b i d. 2 6 L i v i n g s t o n e S h i r t 107 N.L.R.B. 400 (1953); P e e r l e s s Plywood 107 N.L.R.B. 427 (1953); C h i c o p e e M a n u f a c t u r i n g 107 N.L.R.B. 106 (1953). 2 7 S u p r a , f o o t n o t e (26) a t pp. 405-406. - 17 -There were some i n d i c a t i o n s o f N.L.R.B. i n t e n t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i n extreme c a s e s . I t would no l o n g e r c o n s i d e r employer s t a t e m e n t s a g a i n s t the e n t i r e background o f an employer's c o n d u c t but i t would c o n s i d e r such 28 s t a t e m e n t s i n the c o n t e x t i n which they were made. In the e a r l y 1960 1s w i t h the a dvent o f the Kennedy A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , the p h i l o s o p h y o f N.L.R.B. once a g a i n changed. The c o n t e n t o f the employer speech became l e s s i m p o r t a n t ; i t was the c o n t e x t which m a t t e r e d . What were c o n s i d e r e d p r e d i c t i o n s i n the 1950's became the t h r e a t s o f the 1960's. The " l a b o r a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s " d o c t r i n e was r e s u s c i t a t e d and g i v e n f o r c e i n the Dal Tex O p t i c a l c a s e : Even a c u r s o r y r e a d i n g o f t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f the speeches o f the Employer's p r e s i d e n t d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t they were couched i n language c a l c u l a t e d t o convey employees the danger and f u t i l i t y o f t h e i r d e s i g n a t i n g the Union. A f t e r l i s t i n g some o f t h e e x i s t i n g b e n e f i t s , he q u e r i e s whether they wanted 'to gamble a l l o f t h o s e t h i n g s ' , s t a t e d t h a t i f r e q u i r e d t o b a r g a i n he would do so on 'a c o l d -b l o o d e d b u s i n e s s b a s i s ' so t h a t the employees 'may come ou t w i t h a l o t l e s s than you have now', and emphasized h i s own c o n t r o l o v e r wages. T h i s was a c l e a r c u t , r e a d i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h r e a t t h a t the Employer would b a r g a i n 'from s c r a t c h ' as though no economic b e n e f i t s had been g i v e n , and the employees would s u f f e r economic l o s s and r e p r i s a l . 2 9 T h e r e f o r e , c o n d u c t which v i o l a t e d S e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) was automa-t i c a l l y deemed to i n t e r f e r e w i t h the e x e r c i s e o f an employee's f r e e c h o i c e a l t h o u g h i t would n o t c o n s t i t u t e an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e under S e c t i o n 8 ( c ) . 2 8 C o r y Lumber 102 N.L.R.B. 406, (1953). 2 9 1 3 7 N.L.R.B. 1782 (1962) a t 1785; see a l s o I d e a l B a k i n g Company 142 N.L.R.B. 875 (1963). - 18 -T h i s p o s i t i o n was r e i n f o r c e d i n t h e L o r d B a l t i m o r e P r e s s c a s e a y e a r l a t e r i n which the Board i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h r e a t s t o "use the d e l a y i n g p r o c e s s e s o f the law t o the f u l l e s t i n t e n t possible...to.-thwart the p o l i c i e s or) o f t he A c t " would when combined w i t h economic t h r e a t s d e s t r o y t h e l a b o r a -t o r y c o n d i t i o n s . In 1966, the Supreme C o u r t c o n t i n u e d i t s p r a c t i c e o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t 31 o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f the employer. In the L i n n c a s e t he m a j o r i t y a l l o w e d the employer wide l a t i t u d e i n e x p r e s s i n g h i s o p i n i o n even i f t h a t o p i n i o n was " i n t e m p e r a t e , a b u s i v e and i n a c c u r a t e " . I t noted t h a t " r e p r e s e n t a t i o n campaigns are f r e q u e n t l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by b i t t e r and extreme c h a r g e s , c o u n t e r c h a r g e s , unfounded rumours, v i t u p e r a t i o n s , p e r s o n a l a c c u s a -t i o n s , m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and d i s t o r t i o n s . Both l a b o u r and management o f t e n speak b l u n t l y and r e c k l e s s l y , e m b e l l i s h i n g t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s op w i t h i m p r e c a t o r y l a n g u a g e . " 0 The most r e c e n t s t a g e o f t h e American development o f the d o c t r i n e o f f r e e speech o c c u r r e d i n a n o t h e r d e c i s i o n o f the Supreme C o u r t i n the oo S i n c l a i r c a s e i n 1969 (one o f the f o u r cases which a r e g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o as the G i s s e l l c a s e ) . In t h a t d e c i s i o n the C o u r t ( i n a d i v i d e d judgment) a c t u a l l y t i g h t e n e d the r e q u i r e m e n t s i n the t e s t o f l a b o r a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s t o r e q u i r e p r e c i s e a c c u r a c y o f the employer's s t a t e m e n t s . I t was i n t h i s case t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t e x p l i c i t l y d e a l t w i t h the c o n c e p t o f Undue 3 0 1 4 2 N.L.R.B. 328 (1963) a t p. 329. 3 \ i n n v U n i t e d P l a n t Guard Workers o f A m e r i c a Loc 114 383 U.S. 53 (1966). 3 2 I b i d . , a t p. 58. 3 3N.L.R.B. v G i s s e l l P a c k i n g Co. 395 U.S. 575 (1969). - 1.9 -i n f l u e n c e . "An employer's r i g h t s c a nnot outweigh the equal r i g h t s o f h i s employees t o a s s o c i a t e f r e e l y ... And any b a l a n c i n g o f t h o s e r i g h t s must t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t the economic dependence o f the employees on t h e i r e m p l o y e r s , and the n e c e s s a r y tendency o f the f o r m e r , because o f t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p , t o p i c k up the i n t e n d e d i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e l a t t e r t h a t m i g ht be more r e a d i l y d i s m i s s e d by the more d i s -i n t e r e s t e d ear."34 In summary, the p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n o f the N.L.R.B. i s t h a t i t w i l l a c t when a number o f employer p r a c t i c e s have combined t o c r e a t e an atmos-phere o f i n t i m i d a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l l y , c e r t a i n a c t i o n s may have been r e l a -t i v e l y h a rmless (and t h e r e f o r e a c c e p t a b l e ) but i n the a g g r e g a t e t h e y amount t o c o e r c i o n . A c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h r e a t s o f r e p r i s a l s , c o e r c i v e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , p r o m i s e s o f b e n e f i t s , s u r v e i l l a n c e o f u n i o n members, and p e r s u a s i o n o f employees to s i g n a n t i - u n i o n c a r d s w i l l c r e a t e the k i n d o f atmosphere t h a t 35 the Board must seek to n u l l i f y . I t has been h e l d t h a t " e x a g g e r a t i o n s , i n a c c u r a c i e s , h a l f - t r u t h s , name c a l l i n g , and m i n o r m i s s t a t e m e n t s , w h i l e n o t condoned, w i l l n o t be grounds f o r s e t t i n g a s i d e an e l e c t i o n . In the c o u r s e o f a s h a r p l y c o n t e s t e d campaign some p a r t i e s have, i n t h e i r z e a l , r e s o r t e d t o propaganda which a t t a c k s the c h a r a c t e r o f a n o t h e r p a r t y . " However, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t the Board does not o r d i n a r i l y pass judgment on such campaign s t a t e -ments and " w i l l s e t a s i d e e l e c t i o n s o n l y i f c o e r c i o n , f r a u d , o r campaign 3 4 I b i _ d . , a t p. 617. 3 5 G u y a n V a l l e y H o s p i t a l 198 N.L.R.B. 107 (1972) 3 6 H o l l y w o o d Ceramics Company, I n c . , 140 N.L.R.B. 221 (1962) a t 224; Gummed P r o d u c t s Co., 112 N.L.R.B. 1092 (1955). - 20 -t r i c k e r y i s s h o w n . n S I There has been much debate as t o the a c t u a l e f f e c t s o f employer comments on employee a t t i t u d e s . I t has g e n e r a l l y been assumed t h a t such comments would i n d e e d have some b e a r i n g on the employees but a r e c e n t s t u d y by J u l i u s Getman and Stephen G o l d b e r g 3 8 has r e s u l t e d i n a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n i n g o f t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . In seeming r e s p o n s e t o the r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y , the N.L.R.B. d e c i d e d i n the r e c e n t Shopping K a r t s 3 9 c a s e t o a l l o w employers even g r e a t e r leeway and e x p l i c i t l y r e v e r s e d the p o s i t i o n the Board had taken i n p r e v i o u s c a s e s . There i s some q u e s t i o n as t o whether t h i s d e c i s i o n w i l l s t a n d the t e s t o f time but i f i t does, the employer i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s w i l l c l e a r l y b e n e f i t from more l a t i t u d e i n what he may e x p r e s s . The B o a r d n o t e s , D e s p i t e the many d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g the Hollywood Ceramics r u l e , we, t o o , would n e v e r t h e l e s s choose t o c o n t i n u e t o adhere to i t i f we s h a r e d the b e l i e f t h a t employees needed o u r " p r o t e c t i o n " f r o m campaign m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . However, we do n o t f i n d t h i s t o be the c a s e . F o r o u r fundamental d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h p a s t Board r e g u l a t i o n i n t h i s a r e a l i e s o u r un-w i l l i n g n e s s t o embrace the c o m p l e t e l y u n v e r i f i e d assumption t h a t m i s l e a d i n g campaign propaganda w i l l i n t e r f e r e w i t h employees' freedom o f c h o i c e . I m p l i -c i t i n such an assumption i s a view o f employees as n a i v e and u n w o r l d l y whose d e c i s i o n on as c r i t i c a l an i s s u e as union r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s e a s i l y a l t e r e d 3 7 E . g . , C a l c o r C o r p o r a t i o n , 106 N.L.R.B. 539 (1953) a t 541-542; H i g g i n s , I n c . , 106 N.L.R.B. 845 (1953) a t 846, f n . 2; G e o r g i a P a c i f i c  C o r p o r a t i o n , 199 N.L.R.B. 240 (1972). °Getman, J.C. and G o l d b e r g , S.B., "The B e h a v i o r a l Assumption U n d e r l y i n g N.L.R.B. R e g u l a t i o n o f Campaign M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s : An E m p i r i c a l E v a l u a t i o n " , p a r t 2, S t a n f o r d Law Review, V o l . 28 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p. 263. 228 N.L.R.B. no. 190; 1977 C.C.H. p a r . 18047 a t p. 29974. - 21 -by the s e l f - s e r v i n g campaign c l a i m s o f the p a r t i e s . I f t h e s e p o s t u l a t e s had any v a l i d i t y 20 y e a r s ago a t the time o f Gummed P r o d u c t s , t h e y a r e s u r e l y anachronisms today"! We d e c l i n e to j o i n t h o s e who would c o n t i n u e t o r e g u l a t e on the b a s i s o f such assumptions n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g "improvements i n o u r e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s , and d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t o u r e l e c t i o n s have now become a l m o s t commonplace i n the i n d u s t r i a l w o r l d so t h a t t h e de-gree o f employee s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n t h e s e m a t t e r s has d o u b t l e s s r i s e n s u b s t a n t i a l l y d u r i n g t h e y e a r s o f t h i s A c t ' s e x i s t e n c e ..." R a t h e r , we b e l i e v e t h a t Board r u l e s i n t h i s a r e a must be based on a view o f employees as mature i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e c a p a b l e o f r e c o g n i z i n g campaign propaganda f o r what i t i s and d i s c o u n t i n g i t . ^ Even b e f o r e the Shopping Karte d e c i s i o n , the American approach was n o t a t o t a l p r o h i b i t i o n o f a r g u m e n t a t i v e d i s c u s s i o n ; i t was a r e s t r i c t i o n on c o e r c i o n ; ^ an employer i n the U.S. does r e t a i n the r i g h t t o o f f e r h i s AO o p i n i o n as l o n g as i t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e c o e r c i o n o r i n t i m i d a t i o n . The c o m b i n a t i o n o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n and S e c t i o n 8 ( c ) o f t h e T a f t -H a r t l e y A c t have combined t o i n s u r e the employer some r i g h t o f f r e e speech. The r e a d e r must o f c o u r s e remember t h a t t h e s e p r o t e c t i o n s a p p l y t o o t h e r a r e a s o f l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s ( e . g . , i n f o r m a t i o n p i c k e t -i n g ) and thus any p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e comparison t o Canadian law must a w a i t an e x a m i n a t i o n o f the e n t i r e scope o f the l a b o u r l e g i s l a t i o n i n each j u r i s d i c t i o n . 4 Q I b i d . , C.C.H. a t p. 29976. 4 1 G r o e n d y k e T r a n s p o r t , I n c . , v. N.L.R.B., 530 F2d 137 (1976) 4 2N.L.R.B. v. S p a r t o n Mfg. Co. (CA-7; 1966) 53 LC #11,017; N.L.R.B. v. Mt. Vernon Telephone Corp. (CA-6; 1965) 52 LC #16,777; Lake C i t y Foundry Company, I n c . v. N.L.R.B. (CA-7; 1970) 64 LC #11 ,209. - 22 -(2) O n t a r i o In O n t a r i o , t h e r e i s i n S e c t i o n 56 o f t h e i r Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t an e x p l i c i t s t a t e m e n t which c o n f e r s the r i g h t o f f r e e speech on an employer p r o v i d e d t h a t i t does n o t i n c l u d e c o e r c i o n , i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t , p r o m i s e s , o r undue i n f l u e n c e . 4 3 D e s p i t e t h i s s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , the O n t a r i o Board i s f u l l y con-s c i o u s o f the e f f e c t o f employer i n t e r f e r e n c e . I t has h e l d t h a t , " i n view o f t h e r e s p o n s i v e n a t u r e o f h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s employer and o f h i s n a t u r a l d e s i r e t o want t o appear t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f w i t h the i n t e r e s t and wishes o f h i s employer, an employee i s o b v i o u s l y p e c u l i a r l y v u l n e r a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e s , o b v i o u s o r d e v i o u s , which may o p e r a t e t o i m p a i r o r d e s t r o y the f r e e e x e r c i s e o f h i s r i g h t s under the A c t . " 4 4 The t e s t which the Board uses i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the i n f l u e n c e has exceeded a c c e p t a b l e s t a n -dards was o r i g i n a l l y l a i d o u t i n the Savage Shoe case i n which the Board h e l d t h a t : ... r e g a r d must be had t o the whole speech and the c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which i t was made. In the p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e i s n o t h i n g w h i c h , i n o u r o p i n i o n , can be s a i d t o be c o e r c i v e i n the c o n d u c t o f the r e s p o n d e n t company, no r has a n y t h i n g o c c u r r e d which c o u l d be s a i d t o have i m p a i r e d the a b i l i t y o f the employees t o e v a l u a t e the speech t o such an e x t e n t t h a t t h e i r f r e e d e s i r e s c o u l d n o t be d e t e r m i n e d i n a s e c r e t v o t e , 4 ^ U n t i l r e c e n t l y , the O n t a r i o Board had p e r m i t t e d t h e employer con-s i d e r a b l e l a t i t u d e . In a s s e s s i n g whether b e h a v i o u r by the employer i s T h i s amendment was added i n 1960 t o what was then S e c t i o n 48. 4 4 P i g g o t t M o t o r s , 1961 L t d . ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 63 C.L.L.C. p a r . 16264. 4 5 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 60 C.L.L.C. 888 a t p. 889. - 23 -u n a c c e p t a b l e , the Board w i l l view a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . In i s o l a t i o n , the i n d i v i d u a l a c t s may n o t be s e r i o u s enough t o m e r i t p r o h i b i t i o n but when the employer's c o n d u c t i s viewed i n i t s t o t a l i t y , the i n t i m i d a t i o n may become a p p a r e n t . F o r example, a speech by the employer, which by i t s e l f would not v i o l a t e the d o c t r i n e o f f r e e s p e e c h , when com-b i n e d w i t h o t h e r e v e n t s such as the subsequent appearance o f a p e t i t i o n and i t s open c i r c u l a t i o n d u r i n g w o r k i n g hours may be p a r t o f the e v i d e n c e which w i l l l e a d the Board t o c o n c l u d e t h a t unwarranted i n t e r f e r e n c e has o c c u r r e d and t o attempt to remedy the s i t u a t i o n . T h i s i s , i n e f f e c t , the t o t a l i t y o f c o n d u c t t e s t . 4 ^ Numerous s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g j o b s e c u r i t y and employment b e n e f i t s , the con d u c t o f a p o l l among employees t o de t e r m i n e t h e i r views and the o f f e r o f a s s i s t a n c e t o employees i n c a n c e l l i n g t h e i r membership i n the union when taken t o g e t h e r would a l s o have the e f f e c t o f 47 b e i n g c o e r c i v e on the employees. However, t h e r e c e r t a i n l y i s some l a t i t u d e f o r employer i n v o l v e m e n t under the O n t a r i o Code. I f an employer wishes t o make f a c t u a l s t a t e m e n t s ( e . g . , t h a t the u n i o n i n s t e a d o f the i n d i v i d u a l would deal w i t h t he employer) he i s f r e e t o do so. The Board e x p r e s s e d the o p i n i o n t h a t employees a re aware o f the f a c t t h a t employers g e n e r a l l y do n o t l o o k w i t h f a v o u r upon u n i o n o r g a n i z a -t i o n s and any unemotional s t a t e m e n t s to t h a t e f f e c t s h o u l d n o t undu l y 4 0 P l a y t e x [1972] O.L.R.B. Rep.1027; see a l s o A l c a n B u i l d i n g P r o - d u c t s L t d . [1971] O.L.R.B. Rep.806 and V a l l e y C i t y M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. [1971] O.L.R.B. Rep. 773. Hayes S t e e l P r o d u c t s [ 1 9 6 4 ] , O.L.R.B. Rep. 30. - 24 -i n f l u e n c e t h e employees. 48 T h i s i s i n f a c t t h e r e a s o n a b l e man t e s t and i n the absence o f c o e r c i o n , i n t i m i d a t i o n o r t h r e a t s , a r e a s o n a b l e man, i n the o p i n i o n o f the Board, would n o t be a f f e c t e d . Recent d e c i s i o n s by the O n t a r i o Board may i n d i c a t e t h a t a toughen-i n g o f s t a n d a r d s i s f o r t h c o m i n g , however. 49 In the Winson C o n s t r u c t i o n L i m i t e d c a s e t h e Board h e l d t h a t mere i n t e r f e r e n c e by an employer i s s u f f i c i e n t t o v i o l a t e S e c t i o n 56. I t n o t e d t h a t "mere i n t e r f e r e n c e by an employer i n the s e l e c t i o n o f a t r a d e u n i o n by employees i s s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e an o f f e n s e " . The w o r d i n g used by the Board i n d i c a t e s t h a t any i n t e r f e r e n c e w i l l u n f a v o u r a b l y be viewed b ut the f a c t s o f the case do i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e employer d i d p a r t i c i p a t e i n such a way ( t h e o r i g i n a t i o n o f an o p p o s i n g p e t i t i o n ) t h a t i t c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d as i n t i m i d a t i o n i n any e v e n t . 50 And i n June, 1977, i n the Dylex c a s e , the Board h e l d t h a t an employer had c o n t r a v e n e d the A c t through t he use o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f meet-i n g s w i t h the employees, showcase d i s p l a y s , p o s t e r s and l e t t e r s t o the employees. There were r e f e r e n c e s t o l a c k o f j o b s e c u r i t y , the p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e l o s s o f b e n e f i t s i n a n e g o t i a t e d c o n t r a c t and the t h r e a t s o f l o s s o f employment s h o u l d a s t r i k e ensue. When a l l t h i s was viewed t o g e t h e r , t h e r e was l i t t l e doubt t h a t employer i n t e r f e r e n c e had o c c u r r e d . 48 'Sun Tube [1962] O.L.R.B. Rep. 28. '[1976] O.L.R.B. Rep. 714. Dylex L i m i t e d [1977] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 171; F i l e No. 49 50 1500-76-R ( O n t . ) . - 25 -F i n a l l y i n September 1977, the O n t a r i o Board d e a l t w i t h S e c t i o n 56 i n the c o n t e x t o f the V i c e r o y C o n s t r u c t i o n Company^ c a s e . A f t e r a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t the employer's p o s i t i o n i s v e r y dominant due to h i s freedom to advance, p r e s e r v e , impede o r t e r m i n a t e the employment o f an i n d i -v i d u a l , the Board i n d i c a t e d t h a t two employer l e t t e r s and a t t a c h e d c l i p p i n g s c o n t a i n i n g r e f e r e n c e s t o the p o s s i b i l i t y o f l e n g t h y s t r i k e s , the u n a v a i l a -b i l i t y o f employment i n s u r a n c e , the l o s s o f j o b s , the r i g h t o f the employer t o h i r e new employees and the p o s s i b i l i t y o f p l a n t c l o s u r e a l l combined t o c r e a t e an i n t i m i d a t i n g p o s t u r e . I t seems t h a t the O n t a r i o j u r i s p r u d e n c e has become more m e a n i n g f u l t o the B r i t i s h Columbia s i t u a t i o n w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the new amend-ments i n B.C. A l t h o u g h the p r o p o s a l s are n o t i d e n t i c a l t o the O n t a r i o p r o v i s i o n s , e x t e n s i v e r e f e r e n c e can. be made t o the l a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a t t e m p t i n g t o c l e a r l y d e f i n e the paramameters o f o u r r e v i s e d s e c t i o n s . (3) Canada The Canada.Labour Code c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s a g a i n s t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h a t r a d e u n i o n [ S e c . 1 8 4 ( l ) ( a ) ] , p r o v i s i o n s a g a i n s t i n t i m i d a t i o n [Sec. 1 8 4 ( 1 ) ( e ) ] , and a g e n e r a l r e s t r i c t i o n a g a i n s t c o e r c i o n and i n t i m i d a t i o n ( S e c . 196). The Canadian Code seems to be t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n between the p o s i -t i o n s o f the o r i g i n a l p r o v i s i o n s i n the B.C. Code and t h a t o f the O n t a r i o A c t . I t does n o t c o n t a i n the e q u i v a l e n t o f Sec. 56 o f the O n t a r i o A c t which seems t o g u a r a n t e e some r i g h t s o f f r e e s p e e c h ; but n e i t h e r does i t [1978] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 22. - 26 -c o n t a i n the g e n e r a l b a r p r e v i o u s l y f o u n d i n S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) o f the B.C. Code. The landmark c a s e under the F e d e r a l s t a t u t e has been t h a t o f T a g g a r t 52 S e r v i c e L t d . In t h a t c a s e the Board, i n d e c i d i n g the meaning o f S e c t i o n 1 8 4 ( a ) , a d o p t e d the s t r i c t view o f the O n t a r i o Labour R e l a t i o n s Board which had been e x p r e s s e d i n the Sub T u b e ^ 3 and W o l v e r i n e T u b e ^ c a s e s i n the e a r l y 1960's. In t h e i r d e c i s i o n , the Canada Board l a i d down the f o l l o w i n g s t a n -dards : "An employer may e x p r e s s h i s views and g i v e f a c t s i n a p p r o p r i a t e manner and c i r c u m s t a n c e s on the i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s i n so f a r as t h e s e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t him and has the r i g h t to make a p p r o p r i a t e r e p l y t o propaganda d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t him i n r e l a t i o n t h e r e t o . However, he s h o u l d b e a r i n mind i n so d o i n g the f o r c e and w e i g h t which such e x p r e s s i o n o f views may have upon t h e minds o f h i s employees and which d e r i v e from the n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f h i s a u t h o r i t y as employer o v e r h i s employees ... He s h o u l d t a k e c a r e t h a t such e x p r e s s i o n s o f views do not c o n s t i t u t e and may n o t r e a d i l y be c o n s t r u e d by h i s employees t o be an attempt by means o f i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t s , o r o t h e r means o f c o e r c i o n t o i n t e r f e r w i t h t h e i r freedom t o j o i n a t r a d e union o f t h e i r c h o i c e o r to o t h e r w i s e s e l e c t a b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t o f t h e i r own c h o i c e . " 5 5 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t i n o u r p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n o f the American c a s e s , a g r e a t deal o f the a n a l y s i s was c o n c e r n e d w i t h the t r e a t m e n t o f the g u a r a n t e e o f f r e e speech under the F i r s t Amendment to b ^ ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 64 (3) CLLC 683. 5 3 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (48) 5 4 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 63 CLLC 1226. 55 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (52) a t pp. 687-8. - 27 -t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n . The Canadian Board, however, i n the T a g g a r t d e c i s i o n d i d n o t even mention t he p r o v i s i o n s o f o u r B i l l o f R i g h t s which had been 56 e n a c t e d f o u r y e a r s e a r l i e r . In f a c t , t h e p r o v i s i o n r e l a t e d to f r e e speech was n o t mentioned u n t i l 1975 when i n the d e c i s i o n i n C i t y and Country Radio L t d . , 5 7 the Board examined the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h a t A c t . The f a c t s o f the case i n d i -c a t e t h a t the employer had o f t e n d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y i n d i c a t e d h i s nega-t i v e a t t i t u d e toward u n i o n s , he had a d d r e s s e d a " c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e , he had d i s m i s s e d a number o f p r o - u n i o n employees and he had c i r c u l a t e d memos t o the employees. In i t s r easons t he Board e x p r e s s e d t h e o p i n i o n t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n i n T a g g a r t was t h e c o r r e c t approach and t h a t t h e r e was no i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y between i t and the p r o v i s i o n s o f the B i l l o f R i g h t s . In the Board's o p i n -i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 184 o f the Labour Code o f Canada "can be s e n s i b l y c o n s t r u e d and a p p l i e d so t h a t i t does n o t a b r o g a t e , a b r i d g e o r i n f r i n g e the terms ... o f the B i l l o f R i g h t s , ( s p e c i f i c a l l y ) t h e freedom o f speech o f an e m p l o y e r " . 5 8 The employer i s f r e e t o e x p r e s s h i s o p i n i o n and g i v e f a c t s " i n s o f a r as t h e s e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t him and to make a p p r o p r i a t e r e p l y t o propaganda d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t h i m " . 5 9 However, t h i s d e f e n s e must n o t t u r n i n t o u n c a l l e d 5 6 C a n a d i a n B i l l o f R i g h t s , 1960 S.C. c. 44. 5 7 [ 1 9 7 5 ] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 1. 5 8 I b i d . , a t p. 7. 5 9 I b i d . , a t p. 7. - 28 -f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n and i n t e r f e r e n c e . The Board has i n d i c a t e d s u b s e q u e n t l y t h a t t h e employer may a l s o " a c c u r a t e l y p u b l i c i z e the e x i s t i n g terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f employment ... but may not make o r i m p l y any promises ...".^ The Board t h e r e f o r e seems t o p e r c e i v e t h e employer's r o l e as one o f a p u r v e y o r o f f a c t s ; b u t the i n s t a n t t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r p r e d i c t i o n appear i n h i s comments o r a c t i o n s the employee has p r o b a b l y o v e r s t e p p e d the bounds o f the Code. Under the Canada Code, t h e r e i s some room f o r an employer t o speak p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case where r e p u d i a t i o n o f e x a g g e r a t i o n s and f a l s e h o o d s i s r e q u i r e d . However, the Board has e x p l i c i t l y acknowledged t he power o f the employer i n the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p and seems p r e p a r e d t o adopt l i m i t a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e employed i n O n t a r i o . (4) B r i t i s h Columbia - P r e v i o u s L e g i s l a t i o n When the p r e s e n t Labour Code was e n a c t e d i n 1973, t h e a u t h o r s o f the L e g i s l a t i o n had the b e n e f i t o f the. e x i s t e n c e o f many o f the d e c i s i o n s d i s c u s s e d above. The f o r m u l a t i o n o f the p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o employer f r e e speech and i n d e e d the e n t i r e code was t h e r e f o r e done w i t h a p r e c i s e purpose i n mind. S i m i l a r l y , i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the s t a t u t e , t h e B.C. Labour Board i t s e l f has o f t e n r e f e r r e d e x p l i c i t l y t o d e c i s i o n s i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c -t i o n s and i n many c a s e s a d o p t e d t h o s e t h e o r i e s which i t f e l t made good D U B a n k o f Nova S c o t i a , S e l k i r k Branch [1978] 1 Canadian L.R.B.R. 544 a t 551. 6 1 I b i d . , a t p. 551. - 29 -s e nse f o r l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e B.C. Code d i f f e r e d f r o m the o t h e r s t a t u t e s i n two ways. F i r s t o f a l l , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e has i n t e n d e d t o go beyond the o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n r e s t r i c t i n g v i r t u a l l y any k i n d o f employer a c t i v i t y . As a r e s u l t , the B oard i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s p o s i t i o n v e r y b r o a d l y . T h i s b r o a d - r a n g i n g p r o v i s i o n was added to the Code i n the 1973 r e v i s i o n and the message i t a d d r e s s e s t o employers i s q u i t e s i m p l e . I t i s up t o the employees a l o n e whether to choose c o l l e c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h r o u g h a t r a d e - u n i o n . Employers must adopt a n e u t r a l , " s t a n d - o f f i s h " p o s i t i o n . I f an employer g e t s a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d , t h e r e i s always a r i s k o f c o e r c i v e i n f l u e n c e on the employees, though t h i s i s sometimes d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e c t and t o p r o v e . The l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y a d o p t e d i n 1974 i s t o b a r employer i n t e r f e r e n c e o f any k i n d i n the group e f f o r t s o f employees to a c h i e v e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . 6 3 S e c o n d l y , t h i s extreme p o s i t i o n seemed to be r e i n f o r c e d by t h e ab-sence f r o m S e c t i o n 3(1) o f the Code o f a c l a u s e such as t h a t c o n t a i n e d i n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g s e c t i o n i n O n t a r i o ( S e c . 56) and e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t " n o t h i n g i n t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be deemed to d e p r i v e an employer o f h i s f r e e -dom t o e x p r e s s h i s views so l o n g as he does n o t use c o e r c i o n , i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t s , p r o m i s e s , o r undue i n f l u e n c e " . There i s a l s o S e c t i o n 5. A l t h o u g h i d e n t i c a l t o p r o v i s i o n s r e s t r i c t -i n g c o e r c i o n and i n t i m i d a t i o n i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , the B.C. Board has i n d i c a t e d i t w i l l i n t e r p r e t t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n v e r y b r o a d l y . I t has n o t e d t h a t " ... t h e s e p r o h i b i t i o n s on " c o e r c i o n " , " i n t e r f e r e n c e " , . " p a r t i c i p a t i o n " , " p r o m i s e s " , e t c . , p l a c e v e r y b r o a d r e s t r a i n t s on any k i n d o f employer 6 2 G i b r a 1 t a r M ines, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 16/75. L a n g l e y Advance B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 139/74; Beechwood C o n s t r u c -t i o n L t d . , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 32/77. - 30 -i . . . . .. , „ 64 i n v o l v e m e n t i n union o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaigns . In t h e o r y , the r e s t r i c t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 3 ( 1 ) , 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) , 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) , and 5 were a l l encompassing. The c l a s s i c s t a t e m e n t o f the d o c t r i n e was s e t o u t i n the second d e c i s i o n o f the new Board i n 1974 i n the Forano c a s e . The Board i n d i c a t e d t h e r e i n t h a t due to the dependence o f the employee on the employer f o r h i s economic w e l l - b e i n g , "comments and p r e d i c t i o n s which might seem innocuous i n a p o l i t i c a l campaign t a k e on a v e r y d i f f e r e n t hue 65 when v o i c e d by a management". T h e r e f o r e t h e r e i s a g r e a t r i s k t h a t any s t a t e m e n t s made by management w i l l be i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h e s e s e c t i o n s and thus the employer i s admonished t o "remain an i n t e r e s t e d b y s t a n d e r (and) t o r e s i s t the t e m p t a t i o n t o become an a c t i v e p a r t i s a n i n a campaign a g a i n s t a u n i o n . The Forano c a s e a l s o s e t s o u t the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t an employer cannot i n d i c a t e any p r e f e r e n c e between unions which are competing f o r the s u p p o r t o f the employees. In the Beechwood d e c i s i o n , the Labour Board r e i t e r a t e d t h e s e b a s i c s e n t i m e n t s and p u t a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t l i g h t on i t s p o s i t i o n . As has been n o t e d on many o c c a s i o n s i n the c o n t e x t o f employer f r e e s p e e c h arguments, the a u d i e n c e o f employees i s a c a p t i v e one and p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r -a b l e to the o v e r t o n e s u n d e r l y i n g such comments. Reasoned debate i s p r e l u d e d by an a p p r e c i a t i o n o f  the employer's w i s h e s and a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e con- sequences t h a t may f o l l o w from e x p o s i n g a v i e w p o i n t  a t odds w i t h t h a t p o s i t i o n . T h a t i s n o t f r e e speech n o r any form o f debate which can a s s i s t an employee 6 4 F o r a n o L i m i t e d , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 2/74 a t p. 10. 6 5 I b i d . 6 6 I b i d . - 31 -i n making an i n f o r m e d d e c i s i o n . T h a t i s why t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y o f the new Code i s t o b a r em-p l o y e r i n f l u e n c e o f any k i n d when employees a r e s e e k i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The c a s e appears t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e appears t o be room f o r r e a s o n e d debate but because o f t h e employer's p o s i t i o n and v e s t e d i n t e r e s t he must be p r e c l u d e d from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h a t debate i n any manner what-s o e v e r . T h e r e f o r e , i n the absence o f the 1977 amendments, the employer was g r e a t l y r e s t r i c t e d and was p r o b a b l y l i m i t e d t o r e f u t a t i o n o f g r o s s m i s r e p r e -s e n t a t i o n s o f f a c t and s t a t e m e n t s o f l e g a l f a c t . However, even i n making t h e s e comments, he had t o be e x t r e m e l y c i r c u m s p e c t . F o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r -p o s e s , the d o c t r i n e o f employer f r e e speech was n o n - e x i s t e n t i n B r i t i s h Columbia. However, b e f o r e a d m i n i s t e r i n g the f i n a l r i t e s we s h o u l d make two v e r y i m p o r t a n t o b s e r v a t i o n s . F i r s t o f a l l , t h e 1977 amendments may have g i v e n new l i f e to the r i g h t o f employer f r e e speech. S e c o n d l y , even i f something i s h e l d t o be a v i o l a t i o n o f the s t r i c t w o r ding o f the Code, i t i s the r e m e d i a l a c t i o n taken by the Board which i s most c r i t i c a l . Both o f t h e s e a r e a s w i l l be examined i n depth l a t e r i n the p a p e r , but the r e a d e r s h o u l d keep them i n mind as he r e v i e w s t h e n e x t s e c t i o n . B. S p e c i f i c B e h a v i o u r In t h i s n e x t s e c t i o n o f the p a p e r , we w i l l l o o k a t some k i n d s o f b e h a v i o u r which have been the o c c a s i o n o f c o m p l a i n t s r e l a t e d t o the f r e e speech d o c t r i n e . s u p r a , a t f o o t n o t e (63) a t p. 24. - 32 -I t i s i m p o r t a n t to n ote t h a t t h e s e a r e t r e a t e d w i t h i n each j u r i s -d i c t i o n w i t h i n the framework d i s c u s s e d above. T h i s a n a l y s i s i s m e r e l y t o show how t h e s e g e n e r a l t h e o r i e s have been a p p l i e d i n s p e c i f i c c a s e s . (1) Harassment, I n t i m i d a t i o n and S u r v e i l l a n c e In B r i t i s h Columbia, i n t i m i d a t i o n and harassment a t work t o the p o i n t t h a t an employee q u i t h i s j o b w i l l c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n o f both S e c t i o n 5 and S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) as w e l l as b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d tantamount to a CO d i s m i s s a l which v i o l a t e s S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) and (d) o f the Code. S i m i l a r l y any a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r and u n d i s c i p l i n e d comments which would have the e f f e c t o f making an employee f e e l he i s b e i n g i n t i m i d a t e d o r h a r a s s e d are s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d by S e c t i o n 5. F o r example i n the Reddi 69 Gas c a s e , the manager screamed and y e l l e d a t an employee and c o n t i n u a l l y broke promises he had made t o h e r and the B.C. B oard f e l t t h a t i n t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t b e h a v i o u r c o n s t i t u t e d an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . I n f l e x i b i l i t y o r i n t r a n s i g e n c e on the p a r t o f the employer may a l s o c o n s t i t u t e i n t i m i d a t i o n 7 ^ i f t h e y o c c u r i n a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t . The B oard found an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e i n the Robinson L i t t l e case where the employer r e a c t e d to the u n i o n ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a t t e m p t s w i t h s a r c asm, cen-s u r e , heavy handed t a c t i c s , c o n t i n u o u s c r i t i c i s m and i n c r e a s e d j o b s u r -v e i l l a n c e . T h i s c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e and w a t c h f u l n e s s when combined w i t h o g K i d d B r o s . B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 53/76, [1976] 2 Canadian L.R.B.R. 304; F a i r m o n t B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n Nos. 56/75 and 64/76. 6 9 R e d d i Gas B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n s Nos. 33/74 and 112/74. 7 Q R o b i n s o n L i t t l e B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 21/75. - 33 -i n v i t a t i o n s to the s t a f f t o h i s home, a b u s i v e s t a t e m e n t s , h i s m o n i t o r i n g o f phone c a l l s and r e p e a t e d q u e s t i o n i n g o f the employees a l l combined t o c r e a t e a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e Code. C l o s e s u r v e i l l a n c e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s and a c t i v i t i e s o f u n i o n o r g a n i -z e r s has a l s o been f o u n d t o c o n s t i t u t e c o e r c i o n i n B.C. 7^ and i n t h e U n i t e d 72 S t a t e s . In the Speed Queen case i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the employer en-gaged i n s u r v e i l l a n c e , n o t o u t o f s i m p l e c u r i o s i t y , b ut based on a d e s i r e t o o b s e r v e the u n i o n and o t h e r c o n c e r t e d a c t i v i t y o f h i s employees and the 73 N.L.R.B. f o u n d t h i s t o be c o e r c i v e . I n t i m i d a t i o n w i t h i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s framework means any b e h a v i o u r which causes the employee t o be c o n c e r n e d w i t h h i s j o b s e c u r i t y . T h i s can be a c c o m p l i s h e d i n many ways but the common i n g r e d i e n t i n t h e s e d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f b e h a v i o u r seems to be a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f power r e s u l t -i n g from economic s u p e r i o r i t y i n the work r e l a t i o n s h i p . The t o t a l depen-dency o f the employee on the employer must have been emphasized t o such a degree t h a t the employee might r e f r a i n f r o m a c t i n g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h h i s t r u e w i s h e s and even h i s l e g a l r i g h t s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o compare t h i s c o n c e p t w i t h t h a t o f i n t i m i d a t i o n under the C r i m i n a l Code o f C a n a d a . 7 ^ Under S e c t i o n 381 o f t h a t S t a t u t e , i n t i m i d a t i o n i s d e f i n e d so as t o i n c l u d e u s i n g v i o l e n c e o r t h r e a t s o f Guyan V a l l e y H o s p i t a l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 5 ) ; Stone & Webster  E n g i n e e r i n g Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 536 F2d 461(1976); N.L.R.B. v. Armcor Indus- t r i e s , 535 F2d 239 (1976). 7 3 S p e e d Queen, 192 N.L.R.B. 998 (1971). 7 4R.S.C., 1970, c. C-34 as amended by the C r i m i n a l Law Amendment A c t , 1977, 1976-77 ( C a n ) , C. 53. - 34 -punishment to p e r s o n s o r t h e i r p r o p e r t y , p e r s i s t e n t l y f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s ( i n c l u d i n g on a highway), h i d i n g p r o p e r t y o f p e o p l e o r b e s e t t i n g and watch-i n g a d w e l l i n g p l a c e o r r e s i d e n c e . In v i r t u a l l y a l l o f t h e s e c a s e s , t h e r e i s e i t h e r a d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t i m p l i c a t i o n o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e . A l t h o u g h t h e s e are c e r t a i n l y i n c l u d e d under the Labour Code, the c o n c e p t o f i n t i m i -d a t i o n i n l a b o u r m a t t e r s i s c e r t a i n l y b r o a d e r than t h a t e n v i s a g e d by S e c t i o n 381. Many employers however would p r o b a b l y be q u i t e i n t e r e s t e d i n r e a d -i n g S e c t i o n 382 o f the C r i m i n a l Code. I t s t a t e s the f o l l o w i n g : OFFENCES BY EMPLOYERS. 382. Everyone who, b e i n g an employer o r the agent o f an employer, w r o n g f u l l y and w i t h o u t l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y (a) r e f u s e s t o employ o r d i s m i s s e s from h i s employment any p e r s o n f o r the r e a s o n o n l y t h a t the p e r s o n i s a member o f a l a w f u l t r a d e u n i o n o r o f a l a w f u l a s s o c i a -t i o n o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f workmen or.employees formed f o r the p u r p o s e o f a d v a n c e i n g , i n a l a w f u l manner, t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and o r g a n i z e d f o r t h e i r p r o t e c t i o n i n t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f wages and c o n d i t i o n s o f work, (b) seeks by i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t o f l o s s o f p o s i t i o n o r employment, o r by c a u s i n g a c t u a l l o s s o f p o s i t i o n o r employment, o r by t h r e a t e n i n g o r i m p o s i n g any p e c u n i -a r y p e n a l t y , t o compel workmen o r employees t o a b s t a i n from b e l o n g i n g t o a t r a d e u n i o n , a s s o c i a t i o n o r com-b i n a t i o n t o which they have a l a w f u l r i g h t t o b e l o n g , o r ( c ) c o n s p i r e s , combines, agrees t o a r r a n g e s w i t h any o t h e r employer o r h i s a g e n t t o do a n y t h i n g mentioned i n p a r a g r a p h (a) o r ( b ) , i s g u i l t y o f an o f f e n c e p u n i s h a b l e on summary c o n v i c t i o n . 1953-54, c. 51, s. 367. A l t h o u g h t h i s s e c t i o n e x i s t s i n the Code, i t i s c e r t a i n l y n o t been used as a method o f d e a l i n g w i t h c a s e s o f employer f r e e s peech. To be c h a r g e d w i t h b e i n g i n v i o l a t i o n o f the C r i m i n a l Code the employer would, I am s u r e , have to engage i n a c t i v i t i e s which would c o n s t i t u t e p h y s i c a l - 35 -t h r e a t s o r o u t r i g h t v i o l e n c e . The a u t h o r i t i e s have no g r e a t d e s i r e t o get i n v o l v e d i n l a b o u r m a t t e r s and would h e s i t a t e t o do so u n l e s s the v i o -l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 382 would a l s o i n v o l v e a v i o l a t i o n o f o t h e r s e c t i o n s , e.g., a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y . The t r e n d i n i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s i s t o remove m a t t e r s from the c o u r t s . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e t h a t the c r i m i n a l c o u r t s , w i t h t h e i r added burden o f p r o o f , the a v a i l a b l e s a n c t i o n s and t h e i r f o r m a l i t y , i s h a r d l y the i d e a l s t a g e on which t o s e t t l e d i c e y union-management p r o b l e m s . I n t i m i d a t i o n , i n t o r t , l i e s somewhere between the l a b o u r and c r i m i n a l c o n c e p t s . I t c e r t a i n l y i n v o l v e s more than p h y s i c a l t h r e a t s and now i n c l u d e s a c t u a l o r t h r e a t e n e d b reaches o f c o n t r a c t and s t a t u t o r y v i o -75 l a t i o n s but to q u a l i f y as a t o r t i o u s a c t , "the m i s b e h a v i o u r would have to be q u i t e s e r i o u s and a c t u a l damages would have to be p r o v a b l e " . The d i s -t i n c t i o n i n t h e o r y between what c o n s t i t u t e s i n t i m i d a t i o n i n t o r t as opposed to t h a t under the Labour Code i s not t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t but i n p r a c t i c e i t would be a q u e s t i o n o f degree and the Labour Board would be p r e p a r e d t o deal w i t h b e h a v i o u r t h a t the C o u r t s would o v e r l o o k . (2) Promises o f Improved C o n d i t i o n s o f Employment An i n d i c a t i o n from the employer t h a t f u t u r e n e g o t i a t i o n s w i l l be much e a s i e r i f the u n i o n does not g e t i n , has been h e l d t o v i o l a t e S e c t i o n 76 77 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) o f the B.C. Code. Promises o f p o t e n t i a l s t o c k o p t i o n s o r F l e m i n g , John G., The Law o f T o r t s , The Law Book Company L i m i t e d , A u s t r a l i a , F o u r t h E d i t i o n , p.613. 7 6 M c C o y B r o s . L t d . , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n Mo. 9/77. 7 7 F a i r m o n t , Supra see f o o t n o t e ( 6 8 ) . - 36 -78 i n c r e a s e d wages a r e s i m i l a r l y p r o h i b i t e d under the Code. In f a c t , t h e mere c a l l i n g o f meetings to d i s c u s s p o t e n t i a l improvements i n the c o n d i t i o n s 79 o f employment i s an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . In O n t a r i o , s t a t e m e n t s t o an employee i m p l y i n g p o t e n t i a l wage i n -c r e a s e s s h o u l d the uni o n l o s e the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e have r e p e a t e d l y been h e l d t o c o n s t i t u t e undue i n f l u e n c e which would a f f e c t the employee's 80 a b i l i t y t o e x p r e s s h i s t r u e f e e l i n g s c o n c e r n i n g u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . O] op The N.L.R.B. and the Canada L.R.B. have a l s o gone on r e c o r d as b e i n g opposed t o t h i s type o f i n t e r f e r e n c e . D i r e c t p romises o f f u t u r e economic b e n e f i t seems t o be one a r e a i n which a l l t he Boards a g r e e . A f t e r t h i s t y p e o f b e h a v i o u r by t h e employer, i t i s f e l t t h a t an e n l i g h t e n e d f r e e c h o i c e by the employees i s v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e . (3) T h r e a t s o f R e p r i s a l s (a) P l a n t C l o s u r e One o f the most common (and t h r e a t e n i n g ) t a c t i c s used by employers 78 Cam C h a i n , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 138/74. 79 Beachwood, s u p r a see f o o t n o t e ( 6 3 ) . 80 G e s t e t n e r Canada L t d . [1971] OLRB Rep. 62; see a l s o H o s t e s s Food  P r o d u c t s L t d . [1975] OLRB Rep. 218; M a r t e l and Sons Lumber L t d . [1972] OLRB 811; Sun Tube [1962] OLRB Rep. 28; Seven Up Company L t d . L1970] OLRB Rep. 198. 81 Amcor I n d u s t r i e s , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 2 ) ; U n i t e d A i r c r a f t 534 F2d 422 (1975); I d e a l B a k i n g Company, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 9 ) . 8 2 T a g g a r t S e r v i c e L t d . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 5 2 ) . - 37 -i s the t h r e a t t o e i t h e r move the p l a n t o r s h u t down o p e r a t i o n s i f a uni o n i s c e r t i f i e d . The p r a c t i c e o f the Boards v a r y somewhat i n the f a c e o f such u t t e r a n c e s . 83 T h r e a t s t o d i s c o n t i n u e o p e r a t i o n s o r t o move a p l a n t t o a n o t h e r l o c a t i o n ( e . g . , Oregon) have been h e l d t o be v i o l a t i o n s o f both S e c t i o n 5 and S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) o f the B.C. Code. The Board i s c l e a r l y on r e c o r d as v i e w i n g t h i s b e h a v i o u r as c o e r c i v e and i n t i m i d a t i n g as w e l l as u n d o u b t e d l y c o n s t i t u t i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s , a d i s t i n c t i o n has been drawn between a comment or t o the e f f e c t t h a t the employer may have t o cease o p e r a t i o n s and one t o the e f f e c t t h a t he would d e f i n i t e l y do so i n the f a c e o f a s u c c e s s f u l c e r t i -f i c a t i o n d r i v e . In t h e Mylan S p a r t a d e c i s i o n (1948) the N.L.R.B. s t a t e d t h a t "a prophecy t h a t u n i o n i z a t i o n w i l l u l t i m a t e l y l e a d t o l o s s o f employment i s n o t c o e r c i v e where t h e r e i s no t h r e a t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t w i l l use i t s 87 economic power t o make i t s p rophecy come t r u e " . I t i s a d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t i s v e r y f i n e , t o say the l e a s t , and one t h a t even under the b e s t o f c i r c u m -s t a n c e s would be v e r y h a r d to draw, but i t i s one t h a t we may have t o 8 3 M c C o y B r o s . L t d . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 6 ) . 84 Cam C h a i n , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 8 ) . 8 5 I n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f , the employers s h o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e on the f a c t s o f p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s , n o t t h e d i r e consequences o f u n i o n i s m . 8 6 G u y a n V a l l e y 198 N.L.R.B. 107; see a l s o S l o a n e , A. & Whitney, F., Labo r R e l a t i o n s , 3 r d E d i t i o n , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y , a t p. 108. 8 7 7 8 N.L.R.B. 1144, ( 1 9 4 8 ) ] s e e a l s o N.L.R.B. v. TRW Semi Conduc-t o r s I n c . [(CA-9; 56 LC #12299 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ] . - 38 -c o n f r o n t i n B.C. g i v e n the 1977 amendments t o t h e Labour Code. In t h e "pro-employer" y e a r s o f the mid 1950's, the N.L.R.B. gave the employer a g r e a t d e a l o f l a t i t u d e i n making t h e s e t y p e s o f s t a t e m e n t s and t e n d e d t o c h a r a c t e r i z e them as " n o t h i n g more than p r e d i c t i o n s o f the oo p o s s i b l e i m p a c t o f wage demands upon the employer's b u s i n e s s " . In 1961, the N.L.R.B. r e v e r s e d i t s p o s i t i o n and h e l d t h a t such s t a t e m e n t s c o n s t i t u t e more than j u s t l o o s e p r e d i c t i o n s because o f the v e r y r e a l f e a r o f t h e employees c o n c e r n i n g the l o s s o f t h e i r j o b s and hence a r e p r o h i b i t e d . 8 9 S i m i l a r l y , t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f the i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f a s t r i k e and the d i r e consequences t h e r e o f , namely, v i o l e n c e and l o s s o f j o b s , i s 90 c o e r c i v e and i n t i m i d a t i n g . To escape s a n c t i o n s by t h e N.L.R.B., i t seems t h a t t h e p r e d i c t i o n must be c a r e f u l l y p h r a s e d on the b a s i s o f o b j e c t i v e f a c t t o convey an employer's b e l i e f as to d e m o n s t r a b l y p r o b a b l e consequences beyond h i s con-t r o l . In the mid 1960's, the Co u r t s o f Appeal i n the U.S. i n the f a c e o f e v i d e n c e o f c l e a r l y i n t i m i d a t i n g t h r e a t s t o s h u t down the p l a n t s i n ^ t h e e v e n t of. union . c e r t i f i c a t i o n (as opposed t o mere p r e d i c t i o n s o f economic problems i f the uni o n came i n ) , h e l d t h a t t h e N.L.R.B. was c o r r e c t i n f i n d i n g t h a t u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s had been committed. In the G i s s e l Case i n 1969, 8 8 C h i c o p e e M a n u f a c t u r i n g 133 N.L.R.B. 131 (1953). 8 % o m i s m a I n c . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 6 ) . 9 0 I d e a l B a k i n g Company 142 NRB 546 (1963). - 39 -the Supreme C o u r t seemed to s e t down v e r y r e s t r i c t i v e g u i d e l i n e s f o r speeches o f t h i s n a t u r e . 9 ^ In f a c t , however, t h e r e have been many N.L.R.B. d e c i s i o n s s i n c e t h a t time p e r m i t t i n g some d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y 9? o f economic d i f f i c u l t i e s . In O n t a r i o , t h r e a t s c o n c e r n i n g b a n k r u p t c y o r the c l o s i n g o f a p l a n t are g e n e r a l l y p r o h i b i t e d , and the mere f a c t t h a t the t h r e a t s are v e i l e d and can o n l y be d i s c o v e r e d a f t e r a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s o f what was s a i d w i l l 93 n o t excuse the employer. 94 In the V i c e r o y C o n s t r u c t i o n c a s e , the Board n o t e d : F i r e , f l o o d and o t h e r e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s may a l s o cause p l a n t s t o c l o s e , b u t the employer has chosen to put b e f o r e the eyes o f i t s . employees the example o f a p l a n t c l o s i n g f o r the a l l e g e d p u r p o s e o f des-t r o y i n g a u n i o n . The r e s u l t i n g s u g g e s t i o n , however f a c t u a l , t h a t some employers are p r e p a r e d t o d e s t r o y employees' j o b s i n o r d e r t o d e s t r o y t h e i r u n i o n i s an o b j e c t l e s s o n , n o t wasted on employees o f normal s e n s i t i v i t y . I t i s a s t a t e m e n t by example t h a t c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be p e r c e i v e d by t h e employees as a c l e a r t h r e a t t o t h e i r j o b s . 9 5 I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t the Labour Boards i n d e a l i n g w i t h the f r e e speech p r o v i s i o n s have not s p e n t any time a t a l l i n a t t e m p t i n g t o draw d i s t i n c t i o n s between the meanings o f t h r e a t s and i n t i m i d a t i o n . I t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o o b s e r v e t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p between the two. ^ ' s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 3 ) . q? N.L.R.B. v. Automotive C o n t r o l s Corp. (AC-10; 1969) 59 LC #13223; Gary A i r c r a f t Corp. [1971] CCH N.L.R.B. #23004; many o t h e r examples a r e d i s c u s s e d i n 1972 CCH P a r a 5020. qQ IBEW & Howell [1968] OLRB Rep. 695; Kernohan Lumber & Sash Co. L i m i t e d [1977] OLRB Rep. 676. 9 4 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 5 1 ) . 95 I b i d . , p. 27. - 40 -(b) O t h e r Economic S a n c t i o n s O t h e r t y p e s o f t h r e a t s which a r e b a s i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d i n c l u d e the 96 97 p o s s i b i l i t y o f l a y - o f f s , s h o r t e r w o r k i n g h o u r s , the l o s s o f j o b s e c u r i t y no QQ o r o t h e r b e n e f i t s and t h e b l a c k l i s t i n g o f union s u p p o r t e r s . Such t h r e a t s o f economic r e p r i s a l s 1 ^ when c l e a r l y made would c o n s t i t u t e v i o l a t i o n s o f the Codes i n each o f the j u r i s d i c t i o n s . In the W o l v e r i n e Tube c a s e , the O n t a r i o Board n o t e d t h a t o r a l and w r i t t e n s t a t e -ments by the employer r e v e a l e d " v e i l e d b ut p l a i n l y u n m i s t a k e a b l e s u g g e s t i o n s ... t h a t the c o n t i n u a n c e o f p r e s e n t wages, w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , s t e a d y employment and p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s w i l l be t h r e a t e n e d i f the u n i o n i f v o t e d • ,,101 i n . T h r e a t s t o the e f f e c t t h a t the employer would r e f u s e t o b a r g a i n w i t h the union and would use l e g a l manoeuvering as a d e l a y i n d o i n g so are a l s o p r o h i b i t e d . ^ 2 96 General M i l l s Canada L t d . F i l e No. 7411-74-R ( O n t . ) ; Mink Dayton  I n c . 166 N.L.R.B. 604 (1967). 9 7 I b i d . 9 % u n Tube, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 8 ) ; T a g g a r t S e r v i c e L t d . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 5 2 ) ; W o l v e r i n e Tube, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 5 4 ) ; S e r v - A i r I n c . v. N.L.R.B. (CA-10), 57 LC #12,425 (196877 99 L a f a y e t t e N a t i o n a l Bank o f B r o o k l y n 77 N.L.R.B. 1210 (1948). 1 0 0 M y l a n S p a r t a , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 8 7 ) ; Guyan V a l l e y , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 5 ) ; Amcor I n d u s t r i e s , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 2 ) . 1 0 1 W o l v e r i n e Tube, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 5 4 ) . 1 0 2 D a n i e l C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v. N.L.R.B. (1965) 52 LC #16664; F.W.  Woolworth Co. 101 N.L.R.B. 1457 (1952); K e l l w o o d Co. 175 N.L.R.B. No. 79 (1969). - 41 -The Canadian Boards view t h i s t ype o f b e h a v i o u r as t h e c o r o l l a r y to p r o m i s e s to i n c r e a s e b e n e f i t s . In f a c t , t h r e a t s o f r e p r i s a l s a r e p r o -b a b l y even more i n t i m i d a t i n g and a r e viewed w i t h g r e a t a l a r m i n each j u r i s -d i c t i o n . The N.L.R.B. seems to be more open-minded i n a s s e s s i n g the impact o f such s p e e c h e s . To c o n s t i t u t e the t o r t o f i n t i m i d a t i o n , the a c t i o n must be a d e c i s i v e as opposed t o an i n c i d e n t a l o r t r i v i a l f a c t o r i n the procurement o f s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o u r . F u r t h e r the a c t i o n i t s e l f must be i l l e g a l f o r the 103 t h r e a t o f d o i n g something t h a t one i s a l l o w e d t o do i s n o t t o r t i o u s . However, even i f some b e h a v i o u r would t e c h n i c a l l y c o n s t i t u t e a t o r t , i t has n o t been the p r a c t i c e h e r e t o f o r f o r t h e p a r t i e s t o p r o c e e d by way o f c o u r t a c t i o n . One o f the r e a s o n s I s u s p e c t f o r t h i s p a t t e r n i s the i n a p p r o -p r i a t e n e s s o f t r a d i t i o n a l c o u r t remedies t o s o l v e the r e a l problem. (4) I n t e r r o g a t i o n o f Employees One o f t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g a r e a s r e l a t e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f employer f r e e speech i s the i s s u e o f whether an employer i s a b l e t o make i n q u i r i e s o f h i s employees c o n c e r n i n g e v e n t s o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign. O f t e n d u r i n g such a campaign, an employer w i l l wish t o f i n d o u t what r e a l l y i s happening around the p l a n t and w i l l q u e s t i o n ; h i s employees. I t i s c l e a r t h a t the B.C. Board does n o t l o o k k i n d l y on t h i s t y p e o f b e h a v i o u r . In the B u c k l e y c a s e ^ where the manager c a l l e d i n two employ-ees and " g r i l l e d them e x t e n s i v e l y " c o n c e r n i n g the u n i o n ' s a c t i v i t i e s , i t was 1Q3 F l e m i n g , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (75) a t p. 613-614. 104 ^ B u c k l e y V a l l y F o r e s t P r o d u c t s B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 17/76. - 42 -f e l t t h a t t h i s was an o v e r t a c t which gave the appearance o f o p p o s i t i o n t o the u n i o n o r g a n i z i n g a c t i v i t y and as such s h o u l d be p r o h i b i t e d . S i m i l a r l y , where an employer v i s i t s an employee a t h i s home to f i n d o u t "where we s t o o d " and t h e employee then s u b m i t s h i s r e s i g n a t i o n from the u n i o n , i t w i l l be c o n c l u d e d t h a t the i n t e r r o g a t i o n has o b v i o u s l y i n t i m i d a t e d the e m p l o y e e 1 ^ and has v i o l a t e d S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) and S e c t i o n 5. The i n t e r r o g a t i o n can be e i t h e r i n w r i t i n g ( q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ) o r o r a l •J Qg and s t i l l c o n s t i t u t e i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h union a c t i v i t y . I t a ppears t h a t t h e r e may be room, even i n B.C., f o r an i n n o c e n t q u e s t i o n i n g o f an employee about what g e n e r a l l y i s happening but any d i r e c t q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g h i s own o p i n i o n s o r h i s membership s t a t u s w i l l l e a d the Board to c o n c l u d e t h a t the employer i s i n t e r f e r i n g . 1 ^ 7 In the U n i t e d S t a t e s , i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f employees c o n c e r n i n g union membership and a c t i v i t e s , which when viewed i n the c o n t e x t i n which the i n t e r r o g a t i o n o c c u r r e d , f a l l s s h o r t o f c o e r c i o n o r i n t i m i d a t i o n i s now l a w f u l . The mere f a c t t h a t an i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s done i n a s y s t e m a t i c and o r g a n i z e d manner does n o t i n i t s e l f i m p a r t a c o e r c i v e c h a r a c t e r to the ques-108 t i o n i n g . However, t h e c a l l i n g o f employees i n t o t h e o f f i c e t o i n t e r r o g a t e them c o n c e r n i n g n o t o n l y t h e i r own but a l s o o t h e r s ' membership and a c t i v i t i e s w i t h o u t any l e g i t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n o r any a s s u r a n c e 105 K i d d B r o s . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (68) 106 L a n g l e y Advance, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 3 ) . ^ 7 C a m C h a i n , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 8 ) . 1 0 8 B l u e F l a s h E x p r e s s 109 N.L.R.B. 591 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ; Guyan V a l l e y  H o s p i t a l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 5 ) . - 43 -a g a i n s t r e p r i s a l would c o n s t i t u t e c o e r c i o n . In the U.S. to c o n s t i t u t e c o e r c i o n , t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n must meet c e r t a i n s e v e r e s t a n d a r d s . These i n c l u d e : (1) The background, i . e . i s t h e r e a h i s t o r y o f employer h o s t i l i t y and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ? (2) The n a t u r e o f the i n f o r m a t i o n s o u g h t , e.g. d i d the i n t e r r o g a t o r appear t o be s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on which to base t a k i n g a c t i o n a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l employees ( e . g . who a r e the r i n g l e a d e r s ? o r who has j o i n e d ? ) o r was the i n f o r m a t i o n s o u g h t q u i t e g e n e r a l as t o t h e m a j o r i t y s t a t u s o f the uni o n ( e . g . how i s the uni o n d o i n g ? , o r are the employees f o r t h e un i o n ? ) (3) The i d e n t i t y o f the q u e s t i o n e r , i . e . how h i g h was he i n the company h i e r a r c h y ? (4) P l a c e and method o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n , e.g. was employee c a l l e d f r o m work t o the boss's o f f i c e ? Was t h e r e an atmosphere o f " u n n a t u r a l f o r m a l i t y " ? (5) T r u t h f u l n e s s o f the r e p l y . ( I f t h e answers given.were i n c o r r e c t t h a t would c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e o f f e a r ) . I U The N.L.R.B. has even s e t o u t the s a f e g u a r d s t h e employer s h o u l d o b s e r v e i n p o l l i n g employees f o r t h e i r v i e w s : (1) t he p o l l must be f o r the purpose o f d e t e r m i n i n g t he t r u t h o f a un i o n c l a i m o f a m a j o r i t y ; and (2) the purpose o f t h e p o l l must be communicated t o t h e w o r k e r s ; and (3) t he employer must a s s u r e the employees t h e r e w i l l be no r e p r i s a l s ; and (4) i t must be by s e c r e t b a l l o t ; and (5) t h e r e must be no o t h e r u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s c o m m i t t e d . ^ ' ^ S y r a c u s e C o l o r P r e s s 103 N.L.R.B. 377 (1953) e n f o r c e d i n N.L.R.B. v. S y r a c u s e C o l o r P r e s s , 2nd C i r c . 209 F 2d 596 (1 9 5 4 ) ; Guyan V a l l e y H o s p i t a l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 5 ) ; Speed Queen, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 3 ) . 1 1 0 B o u r n e v. N.L.R.B. F2d 47 (1964) a t p. 48. ] 1 1 S t r u k n e s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company 165 N.L.R.B. 102 (1967). - 44 -N o r m a l l y , the N.L.R.B. has found i n t e r r o g a t i o n p r a c t i c e s t o c o n s t i -t u t e c o e r c i o n i f management has a l s o employed o t h e r d o u b t f u l t a c t i c s a l o n g 112 w i t h t he q u e s t i o n i n g . However, one s i n g l e and i s o l a t e d i n s t a n c e o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n o r c a s u a l remark, a l t h o u g h d e s i g n e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t he employees f r e e c h o i c e , has been h e l d t o be i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e v e n t t he 113 e x e r c i s e o f an employee's freedom o f c h o i c e . S i m i l a r l y , e v e r y remark by an employer to an employee w i t h whom he d e a l s on a day t o day b a s i s c o n c e r n -114 m g union sympathy and a c t i v i t y i s n o t c o e r c i o n . To be s a f e , t he i n t e r -r o g a t i o n s h o u l d t a k e p l a c e f o r l e g i t i m a t e purposes and w i t h a s s u r a n c e s o f n o n - r e p r i s a l . 1 ^ I n t e r r o g a t i o n s which due t o the s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e c o n s t i t u t e c o e r c i o n o r i n t i m i d a t i o n a r e p r o h i b i t e d under t h e O n t a r i o 1 1 ^ and C a n a d i a n ^ 7 s t a t u t e s as wel1. (5) I n s t i t u t i o n o f a P e t i t i o n W h i le s t r i c t l y n o t p a r t o f the f r e e speech d o c t r i n e , t he c i r c u l a t i o n o f a p e t i t i o n by an employer which s o l i c i t s a n t i - u n i o n s u p p o r t b o r d e r s on e x p r e s s i o n o f o p i n i o n and hence w i l l be t r e a t e d h e r e . See f o r example: Armcor I n d u s t r i e s 535 F2d 239; N.L.R.B. v. U n i t e d A i r c r a f t , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 8 1 ) ; N.LTR. B. v. Townhouse TV and  A p p l i a n c e s I n c . 531 F2d 826 (1976). 1 1 3 S i l v e r K n i t H o s i e r y M i l l s I n c . 99 N.L.R.B. 422 (1952); Tennessee  S h e l l Co. 212 N.L.R.B. 193 (1974). 1 1 4 M u e l 1 e r B r a s s Company v. N.L.R.B. 544 F2d 815 (1977). 1 1 5N.L.R.B. v. North American M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. 563 F2d 894 (1977). 11 fi Sun Tube, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 8 ) . 1 1 ^ T a g g a r t S e r v i c e , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 5 2 ) . - 45 -In B.C., the Board has h e l d t h a t the employer s h o u l d n o t behave i n t h i s manner and n o t be an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t i n the s o l i c i t a t i o n o f employee 118 d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, the mere f a c t t h a t an employer i s aware t h a t a p e t i t i o n i s b e i n g c i r c u l a t e d by a group o f employees and does n o t h i n g t o 119 s t o p i t i s n o t an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . In the o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , management's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c i r -c u l a t i o n o f a p e t i t i o n has been found t o m e r e l y s e r v e t o undermine the pur-pose o f the p e t i t i o n ( e . g . , t o r e q u e s t a v o t e even though a m a j o r i t y o f the employees have s i g n e d u n i o n c a r d s ) r a t h e r than t o c o n s t i t u t e an a c t i v i -120 t y which a f f e c t s the e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r f r e e c h o i c e . However, i f the employees are i n t i m i d a t e d o r c o e r c e d i n t o s i g n i n g , t h i s would be viewed i n a v e r y d i f f e r e n t l i g h t . The O n t a r i o Board seems t o have taken a s t r o n g s t a n d . In the Winson 121 C o n s t r u c t i o n L t d . c a s e , i t was h e l d t h a t employer i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e o r i g i n a t i o n , p r e p a r a t i o n o r c i r c u l a t i o n o f a p e t i t i o n was a c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f S e c t i o n 56 and t h e r e b y an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . (6) The H o l d i n g o f a M e e t i n g The h o l d i n g o f a meeting by the employer t o d i s c u s s u n i o n o r g a n i z a -t i o n has been p r o h i b i t e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia under the b a r a g a i n s t any '"Langley Advance, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 3 ) ; Forano, s u p r a a t f o o t -note ( 6 4 ) . 119 Quadra Mfg. B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 97/74. 1 2 0 R u b b e r m a i d Canada L t d . (1967) OLRB 336; New O n t a r i o Dynamics  L t d . (1975) OLRB 845. 121 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 9 ) . - 46 -i n t e r f e r e n c e w h a t s o e v e r ( S e c t i o n 3 ( 1 ) ) . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t the o l d S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) was a l s o used t o r e s t r i c t t h i s t y p e o f b e h a v i o u r . I t seems t h a t the Board would h o l d t h i s an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e r e g a r d l e s s o f the c o n t e n t s o f the a c t u a l s t a t e m e n t s made a t the m e e t i n g . To say a n y t h i n g (which i s a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y a t a meeting) i s t o i n t e r f e r e . The Board seems to view the mere p r e s e n c e o f management as i n t e r f e r e n c e . In most c a s e s , i t i s a l s o f o u n d t o be c o e r c i v e . F o r example, i n t h e K i d d B r o t h e r s 177 c a s e , c when t h e employer and h i s l a w y e r a t t e n d e d a t the s t r i k e v o t e f o r the o s t e n s i b l e purpose o f e n s u r i n g i t would be c a r r i e d out f a i r l y and i m p a r t i a l l y , the Board f o u n d t h e i r a t t e n d a n c e t o be c o e r c i v e . In t h a t case t h e r e was a l s o a number o f o t h e r u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s p r e s e n t but t h i s b e h a v i o u r i n i t s e l f would u n d o u b t e d l y meet w i t h the d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e Board. In O n t a r i o , the Board seems t o p r e f e r t o deal w i t h the e f f e c t s o f the meeting. I t views a n y t h i n g which r e s u l t s from such an e v e n t w i t h g r e a t s u s p i c i o n . For example, the Board w i l l o f t e n d i s m i s s employee p e t i t i o n s 123 which o r i g i n a t e f o l l o w i n g a m e e t i n g w i t h management. 1 ?4 In New O n t a r i o Dynamics L t d . , the Board n o t e d t h a t " ... such meetings convey the a n t i - u n i o n s e n t i m e n t s o f the management r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r c o n t e n t and, because o f t h i s , t e n d t o t a i n t the f o l l o w i n g e f f o r t s o f 1 op s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 8 ) ; see a l s o F a i r m o n t B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n s Nos. 56/75 and 64/76. 1 2 3 B u l k - L i f e Systems L i m i t e d [1961] OLRB Rep. 431; T r a v e l a i n e  T r a i l e r M a n u f a c t u r i n g L t d . [1970] OLRB Rep. 829; Hayes S t e e l P r o d u c t s  s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 7 ) . 1 2 4 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 1 2 0 ) . - 47 -employees who d e c i d e t o oppose the a p p l i c a t i o n . In f a c t t h e v e r y f o r m a l i t y o f h o l d i n g such meetings demonstrates an employer's c o n c e r n , and may, i n the eyes o f o t h e r employees, a l i g n w i t h management t h o s e employees sub-s e q u e n t l y c i r c u l a t i n g a p e t i t i o n . " The r e p e a t e d use o f a " c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e " t e c h n i q u e when combined w i t h o t h e r c o e r c i v e p r a c t i c e s w i l l c o n s t i t u t e an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e i n Shoe case and has been r e i t e r a t e d on many o c c a s i o n s . In 1975, t h e Board The employees c o u l d not a v o i d h e a r i n g Mr. Young's message and the a p p l i c a n t t r a d e u n i o n was n o t a f f o r d e d e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e p l y . More impor-t a n t l y , t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e Monday a d d r e s s was n o t a n e u t r a l r e c i t a t i o n o f f a c t o r a s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e to propaganda emanating from the t r a d e union but an a p o c a l y p t i c p r e d i c t i o n based upon pure s p e c u l a -t i o n . Because o f Young's p o s i t i o n and the f a c t t h a t h i s s p e c u l a t i o n s were t i e d t o j o b l o s s and the b a n k r u p t c y o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t , we f i n d t h a t the speech was c a p a b l e o f unduly i n f l u e n c i n g employees assembled t o l i s t e n t o i t . We emphasize t h a t t h i s was n o t a r e a s o n e d a d d r e s s d e l i v e r e d i n the c o u r s e o f a s e c r e t b a l l o t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e but r a t h e r a s t r i n g o f c a t a s t r o p h i c p r e d i c t i o n s f o l l o w e d by the p u b l i c c i r c u l a t i o n o f a document.' 2' In f a c t , t he c o n v e n i n g o f " c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e s " when combined w i t h o t h e r c o e r c i v e p r a c t i c e s may l e a d the Board t o a u t o m a t i c a l l y c e r t i f y t he u n i o n because the t r u e wishes o f the employees would n o t be d i s c l o s e d by a O n t a r i o . 125 T h i s p o l i c y was e s t a b l i s h e d as e a r l y as 1960 i n the Savage s t a t e d : v o t e . 128 125 Sun Tube, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (48) s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 5 ) . s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (120). 'May Department S t o r e 136 N.L.R.B. 797 (1962); 126 127 128, - 48 -In the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e d o c t r i n e o p e r a t e s t o the e f f e c t t h a t i f the employer wishes t o a d d r e s s the employees i n a c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e s e t t i n g , then e q u a l time must be a f f o r d e d t he u n i o n . T h e r e f o r e , the mere h o l d i n g o f meetings i s n o t p r o h i b i t e d p e r s e . 1 ?Q In t he May Department S t o r e c a s e o f 1962, the N.L.R.B. r e a f f i r m e d 130 t h e Bonwit T e l l e r r u l e t o the e f f e c t t h a t i f t h e r e i s a no s o l i c i t a t i o n r u l e i n e f f e c t a t the employer's p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s , then h i s use o f a c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e m e r e l y g i v e s r i s e t o an o b l i g a t i o n t o g i v e t he un i o n equal time. However, the N.L.R.B. w i l l l o o k a t the c o n t e n t s o f what was s a i d and the o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ( i n c l u d i n g t h a t i t was a c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e ) as to whether c o e r c i o n was p r e s e n t . An a d j u n c t t o the c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e d o c t r i n e i s the Names and A d d r e s s e s p o l i c y . In 1969, the Supreme C o u r t f i n a l l y s e t t l e d t h a t t he N.L.R.B. has the power t o r e q u i r e t he names and a d d r e s s e s o f a l l employees 131 i n t h e p r o p o s e d b a r g a i n i n g u n i t be g i v e n t o the u n i o n . T h i s a l l o w s each p a r t y equal a c c e s s t o the v o t e r s i n the case where the N.L.R.B. has o r d e r e d a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n e l e c t i o n t h e r e b y f u r t h e r o f f s e t t i n g t o some d e g r e e , the b e n e f i t s t h a t can be g r a n t e d i n a d d r e s s i n g a c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e . The s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s p o l i c y was r e p e a l e d from t h e B.C. Code and w i l l be d e a l t w i t h below i n the s e c t i o n on remedies. 1 2 9 I b i d . 130 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 4 ) . 1 3 1N.L.R.B. v. Wyman Gordon Company 394 U.S. 759 (1969). - 49 -The Canadian Board does n o t seem to be c o n c e r n e d w i t h open a d d r e s s e s t o the employees ( i t w i l l o f c o u r s e r e v i e w the c o n t e x t and con-t e n t o f t h e i r meeting) b u t i t appears t o t a k e a very dim view o f the use 132 o f the c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e t e c h n i q u e . In the C i t y and C o u n t r y Radio c a s e , the Board i n d i c a t e d i t s c o n c e r n w i t h the f a c t t h a t the employee does n o t have the o p t i o n o f t u r n i n g o f f t h e employer. When t h i s i s combined w i t h any o t h e r s u s p i c i o u s b e h a v i o u r , t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o be a f i n d i n g o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . A p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g d e c i s i o n was r e c e n t l y handed down by the Canada Board i n a c a s e where the employer, a bank manager, had a v e r y e m o t i o n a l and t e a r f u l " e n c o u n t e r s e s s i o n " w i t h h i s employees upon d i s c o v e r -i n g t h a t t h e r e was a movement t o u n i o n i z e a f o o t i n the b r a n c h . However, the manager reconvened the group l a t e r i n the day, a p o l o g i z e d f o r h i s remarks, i n d i c a t e d t h a t the employees were f r e e t o do as they w i s h e d and t h a t he d i d n o t w i s h t o v i o l a t e the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e L a b o u r Code. The Board a p p e a r e d as t o u c h e d by the l a t e r m e e t i n g as the employees had been by the f i r s t one and d i s m i s s e d t h e u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e c h a r g e s even though the a n t i - u n i o n employees had used the employer's s t a t i o n e r y , f a c i l i -t i e s and p o s t a g e meter a l b e i t w i t h o u t management's knowledge. T h i s , however, i s o b v i o u s l y a v e r y odd f a c t p a t t e r n and i t would n o t be the s a f e s t approach f o r o t h e r employers t o f o l l o w . (7) Propaganda Once a g a i n , the B.C. Board has p r o h i b i t e d any b e h a v i o u r on the p a r t o f management r e l a t e d t o the e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e i r o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g u n i o n s . s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 1 3 2 ) . - 50 -N a t u r a l l y , t h i s i n c l u d e s what i s known as " e l e c t i o n propaganda" d u r i n g an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign. However, the N.L.R.B. and the O n t a r i o Board a r e f a r more p e r m i s s i v e . In O n t a r i o t h e t e s t i s whether the propaganda would be c o n s i d e r e d by the average employee i n t h e c o n t e x t t h a t i t was made as o r g i n a r y e l e c t i o n e e r i n g propaganda o r whether i t would have the e f f e c t o f impeding t h e a b i l i t y o f the employees to e x p r e s s t h e i r t r u e wishes and thus d e s t r o y the e f f e c t o f 133 a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e . The Board has i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t w i l l g i v e the employer some leeway f o r i t does n o t w i s h t o " p o l i c e e l e c t i o n campaigns o r to c o n s i d e r the t r u t h o r f a l s i t y o f campaign l i t e r a t u r e o r speeches u n l e s s the a b i l i t y o f the employees t o e v a l u a t e ( i t ) ... i s i m p a i r e d " . 1 3 4 In one c a s e , the employer s e n t two l e t t e r s t o the employees but t h e s e d i d n o t c o n t a i n what c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d c o e r c i v e s t a t e m e n t s . The Board h e l d t h a t i n the absence o f any i n t i m i d a t i o n , they would n o t p o l i c e o r c e n s o r propaganda. T h a t was the t a s k o f the o p p o s i n g p a r t y . E x a g g e r a -t i o n , i n a c c u r a c i e s , p a r t i a l t r u t h , n a m e - c a l l i n g , and f a l s e h o o d s may be e x c u s e d as l e g i t i m a t e e l e c t i o n t a c t i c s as l o n g as t h e y were n o t so mis-135 l e a d i n g so as t o p r e s e n t the e x e r c i s e o f the employees f r e e c h o i c e . In r e a f f i r m i n g i t s p o s i t i o n ( o r i g i n a l l y t a k en i n the Savage Shoes 1 OC L t d . case ) t h a t r e g a r d must be had t o a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f the c a s e , 1 33 V a l l e y C i t y M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co., s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 6 ) . 1 3 4 S t a u f f e r - Dobie M a n u f a c t u r i n g (1959) CCH Can. LLR 1955-59 T r a n s f e r B i n d e r p a r . 16147 a t p. 12, 275. 1 3 5 A l c a n B u i l d i n g , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 8 ) . 1 3 6 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 5 ) . - 51 -the Board n o t e d i n A l c a n B u i l d i n g t h a t the employees must be c r e d i t e d w i t h a modicum o f common s e n s e : "While the m a t e r i a l p u b l i s h e d by the r e s p o n d e n t may be open t o c h a l l e n g e on t h e grounds o f a c c u r a c y o r e x a g g e r a t i o n and may, when viewed by a r d e n t sup-p o r t e r s o f the t r a d e u n i o n , be i n t e r p r e t e d as h i g h l y o b j e c t i o n a b l e f a l s e h o o d s and n a m e - c a l l i n g , because o f t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f such s u p p o r t e r s t o any such a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t o f an employer, we are o f the view, however, t h a t t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s , when viewed by th e average employee, would be a c c e p t e d as normal e l e c t i o n propaganda t o be e x p e c t e d from an employer. Such employees have the b e n e f i t o f the l e a f l e t s d i s -t r i b u t e d by the a p p l i c a n t u n i o n which c o u n t e r -b a l a n c e to a l a r g e degree t he s t a t e m e n t s made by the r e s p o n d e n t . We a r e o f the view t h a t t he ave r a g e employee has t h e mental c a p a c i t y and the n e c e s s a r y e x p e r i e n c e t o a s s e s s t h i s t ype o f propaganda i n a p r o p e r way and would n o t be unduly i n f l u e n c e d t h e r e b y . A s t a t e m e n t by the employer t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t wage p a r i t y w i t h a n o t h e r company i s i m p o s s i b l e because o f the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f c o m p e t i t i o n 1 38 i n t h e i n d u s t r i e s i s p e r m i t t e d under the O n t a r i o Code. The Board w i l l n o t pay a t t e n t i o n t o e i t h e r the most g u l l i b l e v o t e r o r the one o f f i r m con-v i c t i o n s . I f the s t a t e m e n t s a r e o b v i o u s l y propaganda, they c o u l d n o t 139 be s a i d to i n t e r f e r e w i t h the f r e e e x p r e s s i o n s o f the v o t e r s . The American p o s i t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h a t e l e c t i o n propaganda i s p e r m i s s i b l e and the N.L.R.B.. w i l l o n l y i n t e r v e n e i f the m a t e r i a l con-s t i t u t e s c o e r c i o n o r i n t i m i d a t i o n . However, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s propaganda may have some e f f e c t , ' J / s u p r a , a t f o o t n o t e (48) a t pp. 807-8. 1 38 H o s t e s s Food P r o d u c t s , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 8 0 ) . J S t a u f f e r - D o b i e M a n u f a c t u r i n g , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 1 3 4 ) ; Savage  Shoes, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 5 ) . - 52 -both t h e O n t a r i o and American a c t s p l a c e time r e s t r i c t i o n s on such e l e c t i o n e e r i n g and th e s e w i l l be examined below i n S u b s e c t i o n 9. (8) Movies. One v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g a s p e c t o f e l e c t i o n campaigning i s the use o f movies to persuade the v o t e r s . Two movies, "And Women Must Weep," and, "A Q u e s t i o n o f Law and Ord e r , " have been s u b j e c t s o f c o m p l a i n t b e f o r e the Board i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . The movie,"And Women Must Weep" was d e s c r i b e d by the N.L.R.B. i n the P l o c h m a n - H a r r i s o n c a s e : T h i s movie, based upon t he above l e t t e r s , was o s t e n s i b l y a t r u e a c c o u n t o f the P o t t e r - B r u m f i e l d s t r i k e . I t was, however, a d r a m a t i z e d p r o d u c t i o n r a t h e r than a documentary f i l m . The s t a g i n g , a c t i n g , and d i r e c t i o n were p e r f o r m e d by pe r s o n s s k i l l e d i n t h i s medium. The competence o f the c a s t and the e x c e l l e n c e o f the p r o d u c t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a moving s t o r y o f c a l l o u s union l e a d e r s , a h e l p l e s s employer, u n f o r t u n a t e v i c t i m s , i n c l u d i n g , as a c l i m a x , the above-mentioned i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g the i n f a n t , v i o l e n c e , f e a r , and h a t r e d i n an unn e c e s s a r y s t r i k e f o r no j u s t i f i a b l e r e a s o n J 4 ^ And f u r t h e r i n the Mason Co. c a s e : I have no doubt t h a t among a u d i e n c e s o f wo r k i n g men and women, as w e l l as o t h e r s , "And Women Must Weep" i s e m o t i o n a l l y o v e r p o w e r i n g . I t p i c t u r e s a l a b o u r d i s p u t e as one i n which A m e r i c a n i s m , r e l i g i o n , f a m i l y , motherhood, and i n n o c e n t c h i l d h o o d a r e a r r a y e d on one s i d e , and goons, b r u t e s , and murderers on the o t h e r o r p r o u n i o n s i d e J 4 ^ 142 "A Q u e s t i o n o f Law and Order" i s d e s c r i b e d i n I d e a l B a k i n g Company case: 1 4 0 1 4 0 N.L.R.B. 130 (1962) a t p. 131. 1 4 1 1 4 2 N.L.R.B. 480 (1963). 142 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 9 ) . - 53 -B r i e f l y , t h e f i l m shows v a r i o u s scenes o f mass p i c k e t i n g and a t t e n d i n g v i o l e n c e , - i n c l u d i n g p h y s i c a l b e a t i n g o f v a r i o u s persons a t t e m p t i n g t o e n t e r a p l a n t b e i n g p i c k e t e d , s t o n i n g and o v e r t u r n i n g o f c a r s , and o t h e r damage. At one p o i n t , the scene shows a per s o n l y i n g , a p p a r e n t l y u n c o n s c i o u s , i n a s t r e e t . The f i l m c l o s e s w i t h t h e n a r r a t o r ' s p l e a f o r law enf o r c e m e n t i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g l a b o u r v i o l e n c e , and w i t h a d d i t i o n a l scenes o f v i o l e n c e , presumably i n the c o u r s e o f l a b o u r d i s p u t e s . In t h e Plochman c a s e , the N.L.R.B. ( d e s p i t e a s t r o n g d i s s e n t ) f e l t t h a t the, movie ("Women") c o n s t i t u t e d p a r t o f a - s c e n a r i o which i n . t o t a l amounted t o an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . The employer had a l s o r e s o r t e d t o in f l a m m a t o r y speeches and pamphlets which when combined w i t h the em o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n s t o t h i s v e r y d r a m a t i c f i l m r e s u l t e d i n " m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n which 143 exceeded the bounds o f p e r m i s s i b l e campaign propaganda I t took a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n i n Id e a l B a k i n g Company where t he movie (Law and Order) was shown "as a f i n a l t a c t i c " a t a company-sponsored d i n n e r f o r the employees and t h e i r f a m i l i e s the n i g h t b e f o r e t h e e l e c t i o n . A f t e r the Board a g a i n found t h a t t h e f i l m "And Women Must Weep" v i o l a t e d t h e A c t 144 i n t h e S o u t h w i r e Company c a s e , t h e employer a p p e a l e d . The C o u r t o f Appeal r e v e r s e d t h e d e c i s i o n on t e c h n i c a l grounds and i n d i c a t e d t h e Board c o u l d not s i m p l y f o r b i d t h e f i l m to be used on a l l o c c a s i o n s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c i r -cumstances. In the Speed Queen c a s e , t h e N.L.R.B,. has att e m p t e d to doom once a g a i n t h e f i l m . A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n i n S o u t h w i r e , the Board h e l d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h a t s p e c i f i c case b e f o r e t h e Board was such t h a t t h e showing o f the f i l m was " c o e r c i v e , c o n s t i t u t i n g a t h r e a t o f r e p r i s a l o r f o r c e ... (such t h a t t h e employees c o u l d ) a n t i c i p a t e s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (140) a t p. 133. 159 N.L.R.B. 394 (1966). - 54 -d i s a s t r o u s economic and s o c i a l e f f e c t s and danger to t h e p h y s i c a l w e l l - b e i n g 145 o f themselves and members o f t h e i r f a m i l i e s . " However, more r e c e n t l y , t h e B oard has r e v e r s e d i t s p o s i t i o n . In 146 t h r e e d e c i s i o n s , namely H a r v e s w i l l e R o l l i n g M i l l , H eckethorn M a n u f a c t u r - i n g C o . 1 4 7 and L i t h o P r e s s 1 4 8 , they i n d i c a t e d t h a t the mere showing o f the f i l m i n the absence o f any o t h e r o b j e c t i o n a b l e c o n d u c t w i l l n o t v i o l a t e the A c t and t h a t a l l o t h e r d e c i s i o n s which a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s p o l i c y a r e o v e r r u l e d . For t h e time b e i n g , t h a t i s where the c a s e r e s t s . As f a r as t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r f i l m s a r e c o n c e r n e d , they are now v e r y o u t d a t e d and i t i s s u s -p e c t e d i n e f f e c t i v e . That may i n p a r t e x p l a i n t h e Board's p o s i t i o n i n a l l o w i n g t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n . A new and more e f f e c t i v e f i l m may n o t be t r e a t e d as k i n d l y . (9) Time R e s t r i c t i o n s B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o an a n a l y s i s o f the F e d e r a l and B.C. L e g i s l a t i o n , we s h o u l d n o t e t h a t the U.S. and O n t a r i o f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t t he r i g h t s o f the employer (and the union) f o r a p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g the r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n v o t e . In O n t a r i o , the Board has the power to d i r e c t t h a t no propaganda o r e l e c t i o n e e r i n g can o c c u r f o r the 72-hour p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e the v o t e 145 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 3 ) . 146 204 N.L.R.B. No. 42 (1973). 1 4 7 2 0 8 N.L.R.B. No. 46 (1974). 1 4 8 2 1 1 N.L.R.B. 1.014 (1974). - 55 -and w i l l n o r m a l l y do so. T h i s s t r i c t p r o h i b i t i o n i s then v i r t u a l l y a b s o l u t e and any v i o l a t i o n o f i t ( r e g a r d l e s s o f the q u a l i t y o r t h e l i k e l y e f f e c t o f t h e propaganda) may b r i n g s e v e r e remedies (such as the h o l d i n g o f N 149 a new v o t e ) . The reason f o r t h i s r u l e was s e t o u t i n Rogers M a j e s t i c ^ and has been c i t e d on a number o f o c c a s i o n s " I t s p r i m a r y o b j e c t i s t o e n s u r e t h a t , so f a r as p o s s i b l e , t h e vot e w i l l be c o n d u c t e d i n an atmos-phere o f calm and t h a t t he employees who are t o p a r -t i c i p a t e i n the vot e s h a l l n o t be s u b j e c t e d t o p a r t i s a n p r e s s u r e s o r i n f l u e n c e s as the v o t i n g day ap p r o a c h e s . The Board's view has always been t h a t a t t h a t p o i n t the i n d i v i d u a l employees s h o u l d be l e f t f r e e to make a p u r e l y p e r s o n a l d e c i s i o n as t o how he s h a l l v o t e . " 1 5 2 In cases where the r u l e has been broken a c c i d e n t a l l y ( e . g . m a i l was d e l a y e d u n e x p e c t e d l y ) t he Board may o v e r l o o k the v i o l a t i o n i f i n i t s o p i n i o n , no s e r i o u s harm was done. There i s , however, a heavy onus on t h e v i o l a t o r t o prove i t was a c c i d e n t a l and d i d n o t have s e r i o u s r e p e r c u s -153 s i o n s . The union was unable t o prove c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t i t had undertaken 154 such p r e c a u t i o n s i n t h e R e g i o n a l M u n i c i p a l i t y o f Hal ton c a s e and the Board h e l d t h a t i t had p o s t e d t he l e t t e r s a t i t s own p e r i l . S i m i l a r l y , i f 1 4 9 S e e Maple L e a f Veneer [1969] OLRB Rep. 58; A u t o m a t i c E l e c t r i c  Case (1961) 62 CLLC 1006; Wackenhut o f Canada [1975 OLRB Rep. 738. 1 5 0 D L S 7 - 1382. 1 5 1 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (54) a t p. 1228. 1 5 2 K o r l i n [1972] OLRB Rep. 821 a t p. 823. 153 see - A u t o m a t i c E l e c t r i c , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 1 4 9 ) ; W a t e r l o o County  H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n [1965] OLRB Rep. 12; Windsor T e l e p h o n e Answering S e r v i c e [1973] OLRB Rep. 460; Komoka N u r s i n g Homes LI 9 7 3 j OLRB Rep, 28; K r a l i n a t o r F i l t e r s L i m i t e d [1966] OLRB Rep. 312; H o s t e s s Food P r o d u c t s , s u p r a a t f o o t -note ( 8 0 ) ; XDG L i m i t e d [1975] OLRB Rep. 936. 1 5 4 R e g i o n a l M u n i c i p a l i t y o f Hal ton [1975] OLRB Rep. 75. - 56 -the e v e n t u a l v o t e i s overwhelming, i t i s u n l i k e l y the Board would be o v e r l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h an i n c i d e n t a l v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n . Where a u n i n -t e n t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n does e x i s t and the o t h e r p a r t y ( e . g . , employer o r r i v a l u nion) c o u l d e a s i l y a c t t o c o r r e c t i t , t h e y must do so and n o t s i m p l y " w a i t i n the bush" i n the hopes o f o v e r t u r n i n g an u n f a v o u r a b l e v o t e on a l e g a l t e c h n i c a l i t y . 1 5 5 In the U.S. t h e r e i s a s i m i l a r r e s t r i c t i o n known as the P e e r l e s s Plywood r u l e . The employer i s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o i s s u e e l e c t i o n propaganda w i t h i n 24 hours o f the e l e c t i o n on company t i m e . The r u l e i s e x p l i c i t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t : "Employers and unions a l i k e w i l l be p r o h i b i t e d from making e l e c t i o n speeches on company time t o massed a s s e m b l i e s o f employees w i t h i n t w e n t y - f o u r hours b e f o r e the s c h e d u l e d time f o r c o n d u c t i n g an e l e c -156 t i o n t o be s e t a s i d e whenever v a l i d o b j e c t i o n s are f i l e d . " The e f f e c t o f t h e s e p r o h i b i t i o n s i s o f c o u r s e t o l i m i t l a s t minute a s s a u l t s when the o t h e r s i d e i s d e n i e d a f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t e s t the p o i n t s made. I t i s c e r t a i n l y a u s e f u l d e v i c e b u t does n o t , i n o u r o p i n i o n , r e a l l y s o l v e the major q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e us. (10) C o n c l u s i o n s When j u d g i n g t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l t y p e s o f b e h a v i o u r , each o f the Boards w i l l i n e f f e c t l o o k a t t h e t o t a l i t y o f the c o n d u c t o f t h e employer. Even i n B.C., a l t h o u g h each o f the above c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n i s i n t h e o r y an u n f a i r l 5 5 C h a t e a u Gardens (London) Inc. [1977] OLRB Rep. 12. 1 56 s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 6 ) ; see a l s o M a l l o r y C a p a c i t o r Company, 167 N.L.R.B. 647 (1967). - 57 -l a b o u r p r a c t i c e , we s u g g e s t t h a t i t i s the degree t o which the t o t a l i t y o f c o n d u c t i n t e r f e r e s w i t h the union t h a t w i l l d e t e r m i n e t he s p e c i f i c remedy imposed. I t s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t t h e Boards seem t o a p p l y an o b j e c t i v e r a t h e r than a s u b j e c t i v e t e s t i n t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h i s type o f b e h a v i o u r . The i s s u e i s whether the a c t i v i t y might have had an" e f f e c t . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t i n many cases t he o c c u r r e n c e o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e w i l l m e r e l y g i v e r i s e t o an i n f o r m a l i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e Board. In many c a s e s , t a c t i c s such as t h o s e d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l o c c u r i n a d v e r t e n t l y and r a t h e r than stamping t he employer as a v i o l a t o r o f the l e g i s l a t i o n , the Board w i l l be s a t i s f i e d t o see the o f f e n d i n g b e h a v i o u r s t o p p e d w i t h o u t t he n e c e s s i t y o f a f o r m a l o r d e r . The B.C. Board c e r t a i n l y i s i n f a v o u r o f p l a y i n g i t s r o l e i n a m e d i a t i v e way whenever p o s s i b l e i n any type o f d i s p u t e under the Code. Of c o u r s e i n some s i t u a t i o n s , t h e employer i s c o g n i z a n t o f h i s wrong-doing and t h e Board w i l l have t o d e a l w i t h the probl e m i n a more f o r m a l manner. We a r e now ready t o p r o c e e d t o a d i s c u s s i o n o f the remedies a v a i l a b l e and when they w i l l be used i n each o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . r n A- 157 C. Remedies (1) G e n e r a l One o f the c r i t i c a l a r e a s r e l a t e d t o employer f r e e speech t h a t has n o t been emphasized i n d i s c u s s i o n s and a r t i c l e s i s t h a t o f the r e m e d i a l 157 P l e a s e r e f e r t o Appendix 2 f o r the a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n i n the l e g i s -l a t i o n o f each o f the j u r i s d i c t i o n s . - 58 -powers o f the v a r i o u s Boards. I t i s one t h i n g t o d e c l a r e t h a t some a c t i -v i t y i s u n a c c e p t a b l e ; i t i s a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g t o do something about i t . The mere f a c t t h a t something i s an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e may n o t d i s s u a d e an employer; o n l y an e f f e c t i v e remedy w i l l do t h a t . The r e a l d i f f i c u l t y i s i n a r r i v i n g a t a remedy t h a t w i l l e f f e c t i v e l y d i s s u a d e the employer as w e l l as p r o t e c t the employees' r i g h t s t o e x e r c i s e t h e i r f r e e c h o i c e . The employment o f extreme remedies which would g u a r a n t e e a b s o l u t e l y no i n t e r f e r e n c e o f any k i n d under any c i r c u m s t a n c e s would s i m p l y n o t be e q u i t a b l e i n many i n s t a n c e s . C o n v e r s e l y , i n a d e q u a t e remedies would r e n d e r even v e r y s t r i c t r e s t r i c t i o n s q u i t e m e a n i n g l e s s . T h e r e f o r e , a b a l a n c e must be s t r u c k not o n l y by a c a r e f u l w o r d i n g o f the a c t u a l r e s t r i c -t i v e p r o v i s i o n s but a l s o by h a v i n g a r e a s o n a b l e and e f f e c t i v e group o f remedies a v a i l a b l e . (2) Cease and D e s i s t O r d e r The most b a s i c remedy a v a i l a b l e t o each o f the Boards i s the cease and d e s i s t o r d e r . T h i s remedy i s most a p p r o p r i a t e when the v i o l a t i o n o f the Code i s an o n - g o i n g e f f o r t o r i n cases where an i n c i d e n t i s l i k e l y t o o c c u r a g a i n . I f the employer v i o l a t e s a c e a s e and d e s i s t o r d e r , he i s then l i a b l e i n two ways; i n the f i r s t p l a c e , he.has c o n t r a v e n e d t h e Code a g a i n and s e c o n d l y , he has d i s r e g a r d e d an o r d e r o f t h e Board which c o u l d then r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d s a n c t i o n s and u l t i m a t e l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia t o a f i l i n g o f the o r d e r i n the Supreme C o u r t R e g i s t r y . The o r d e r than becomes an o r d e r o f t h a t C o u r t , contempt o f which c o u l d l e a d t o f i n e s and even B.C. Code,Sec. 8 ( 4 ) ( a ) ; O n t a r i o Code, Sec. 7 9 ( 4 ) ( a ) ; Canada Code, Sec. 189; T a f t H a r t l e y A c t , Sec. 10(a) & ( c ) . - 59 -imprisonment. However, as n o t e d above, b e f o r e b r a n d i n g an employer as r e c a l c i t r a n t by i s s u i n g a cease and d e s i s t o r d e r , the Board w i l l attempt t o s o l v e t he problem through m e d i a t i o n . I f t h i s i s u n s u c c e s s f u l and the employer does n o t promise t o comply, then the Board w i l l i s s u e an o r d e r and the " s t i g m a " w i l l be a t t a c h e d . Such an o c c u r r e n c e , w h i l e n o t o f any c o n c e r n t o some empl o y e r s , can be v e r y damaging t o o t h e r s who a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o undermine a union's campaign and wis h to appear r e s p o n s i b l e i n d o i n g so. An o r d e r o f the Board d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t him may j e o p a r d i z e t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the eyes o f the employees. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however, t h e s e o r d e r s a r e e f f e c t i v e o n l y i n l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I f an employer has knowingly o r f l a g r a n t l y v i o l a t e d t h e Code, i t i s d o u b t f u l how much impact a cease and d e s i s t o r d e r would have on him. He may e i t h e r be w i l l i n g t o take h i s chances w i t h t h e Board i n o r d e r to attempt to b e a t the union f o r f i n a n c i a l r e a s o n s o r because i n h i s " e n l i g h t e n e d s e l f - r i g h t e o u s n e s s " he f e e l s t h a t i t i s h i s du t y t o c r u s h c r e e p i n g u n i o n i s m . In t h e s e cases t he o r d e r r e a l l y has v e r y l i t t l e d e t e r r e n t e f f e c t . T h i s remedy i s a p o s t f a c t o mechanism t o a b o r t e x i s t i n g v i o l a t i o n s and i s most u s e f u l a g a i n s t i n n o c e n t b u t e r r i n g e m ployers. S i t u a t i o n s where t h e r e a r e c o n t i n u o u s b r e a c h e s o f the Code would r e q u i r e the un i o n t o r e t u r n to the Labour Board and seek o t h e r remedies. F u r t h e r an employer who i s w i l l i n g t o f a c e the wrath o f the Board c o u l d engage i n a campaign which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by suddenness and b r e v i t y . In f a c t , i n many c a s e s , t h i s would be the most e f f e c t i v e type o f campaign and to d i s c o u r a g e t h i s t ype o f b e h a v i o u r from o c c u r r i n g t h e Board must have a v a i l a b l e o t h e r remedies under the Code. - 60 -(3) O r d e r i n g o f a R e p r e s e n t a t i o n Vote In cases where more than 45% but l e s s than 55% o f a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t 159 have s i g n e d up, a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e i s n o r m a l l y r e q u i r e d . However, a v o t e can be r e q u i r e d i n two o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . F i r s t o f a l l , a new v o t e may be h e l d where a p r i o r r a t e i s u n l i k e l y t o have i n d i c a t e d the t r u e wishes 160 o f the employees, i . e . l e s s than 55% o f e l i g i b l e employees c a s t b a l l o t s . S e c o n d l y , even i n cases where more than 55% o f the employees have s i g n e d up, i f t h e Board i s c o n v i n c e d t h a t the s i g n a t u r e s do n o t e x p r e s s the t r u e w i s h es o f the members, t h e Board can o r d e r a vote under S e c t i o n 4 3 ( 1 ) . The h o l d i n g o f a new v o t e i s p r e d i c t e d on the assumption t h a t the e f f e c t s o f the employer's p r a c t i c e s have d i s a p p e a r e d and the employees now f e e l t h ey can h o n e s t l y e x p r e s s t h e i r f r e e w i l l . The more s e r i o u s and i n t i -m i d a t i n g the b e h a v i o u r o f t h e employer, the l o n g e r i t w i l l have an e f f e c t on the minds o f the workers. I t does seem r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e l o n g e r the p e r i o d between v o t e s , the more l i k e l y i t i s t h a t the c o e r c i o n has become remote. However, t h i s time d e l a y may i n f a c t work to the employer's advantage i n t h a t the union o r g a n i z e r s may l o s e i n t e r e s t , t he p r o - u n i o n workers may l e a v e ( w i t h management's b l e s s i n g s ) and/or the e n t i r e i s s u e o f union r e p r e s e n t a t i o n may l o s e i t s a p p e a l . T h i s i s n o t t o say t h a t the above w i l l happen i n e v e r y c a s e b u t we s h o u l d be aware o f the problems i n h e r e n t i n t h e use o f t h i s remedy. I t can be e f f e c t i v e i n some c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i n many s i t u a t i o n s i t may have the e f f e c t o f n u l l i f y i n g the employer's a c t i o n s . There a r e as has been p o i n t e d o u t , however, d i s a d v a n t a g e s as w e l l as advantages t o the passage o f t i m e . B.C. Code, Sec. 4 3 ( 2 ) . i B.C. Code, Sec. 4 5 ( 4 ) . - 61 -As w e l l as r e q u i r i n g a new v o t e a t a l a t e r d a t e , the Board may a l s o combine t h i s o r d e r w i t h o t h e r c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n . F o r example, d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , the employer can be p r o h i b i t e d from making any remarks wh a t s o e v e r 161 c o n c e r n i n g the e l e c t i o n . T h i s a r e a i s c o v e r e d more f u l l y i n the next s e c t i o n . The Board w i l l employ t h e s e t y p e s o f d i r e c t i o n s i n s i t u a t i o n s where a cease and d e s i s t o r d e r i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t p r i m a r i l y due t o the p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o n t i n u e d v i o l a t i o n s . The Board would a l s o have to be o f the o p i n i o n t h a t more s e r i o u s remedies are n o t a p p r o p r i a t e inasmuch as the e f f e c t s o f t h e employer's b e h a v i o u r can be c o u n t e r - b a l a n c e d by t h e passage o f time and m i n o r c o r r e c t i v e s u r g e r y . T h e r e f o r e , i n c a s e s where even a l e n g t h y time d e l a y w i l l n o t , i n the o p i n i o n o f the B o a r d , p r o v i d e f o r a t r u l y f r e e e x p r e s -s i o n o f the w i l l o f the employees, more s e r i o u s measures w i l l be a d o p t e d . (4) C o r r e c t i v e A c t i o n The B r i t i s h Columbia and O n t a r i o A c t s c o n f e r upon t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e Boards the power " t o r e c t i f y t he a c t " which c o n s t i t u t e d the u n f a i r l a b o u r 162 p r a c t i c e . The T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t a l l o w s the N.L.R.B. t o " t a k e such a f f i r -1 m a t i v e a c t i o n ... as w i l l e f f e c t u a t e the p o l i c i e s o f t h i s A c t . " These p r o v i s i o n s o f f e r a g r e a t d e a l o f l a t i t u d e t o the Boards i n e f f e c t i n g the purposes o f the Codes. To l i m i t e f f e c t i v e l y t he p e r p e t r a -t i o n s o f u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s upon the employees, the Boards w i l l have to e x e r c i s e t h e i r c r e a t i v i t y under t h e s e s e c t i o n s i n c r e a s i n g l y . l 6 1 F o r a n o , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 4 ) ; Cannery B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 57/74; Cam C h a i n , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 8 ) ; F a i r m o n t , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 8 ) . 1 6 2 B . C . Code, Sec. 8 ( 4 ) ( b ) ; O n t a r i o Code, Sec. 7 9 ( 4 ) ( b ) . l 6 3 T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t , Sec. 1 0 ( c ) . - 62 The B.C. Board has used c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i n s i t u a t i o n s where an employer has u n f a i r l y i n f l u e n c e d . h i s employees ( t h r o u g h speeches and o t h e r a c t i o n s ) . The Board i n t h o s e c a s e s o r d e r e d a v o t e t o be h e l d a f t e r a c e r -t a i n p e r i o d o f time and i n the i n t e r i m p e r m i t t e d t he u n i o n : (1) t o ad d r e s s the employees on the company p r e m i s e s ; (2) t o hand o u t l i t e r a t u r e a t the m e e t i n g ; (3) t o r e t u r n one more time b e f o r e t he vo t e to d i s t r i b u t e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . The B.C. Board has a l s o i n d i c a t e d by way o f o b i t e r t h a t a monetary award c o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e i n c a s e s where any o t h e r r e m e d i a l o r d e r would be 164 i n e f f e c t i v e and/or would be d i s o b e y e d . A n o t h e r r e m e d i a l power t h a t has been employed i s an o r d e r f o r the employer t o d e l i v e r to the union a complete l i s t o f names, a d d r e s s e s and t e l e p h o n e numbers o f the employees i n the p r o p o s e d u n i t . The o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h e B.C. Labour Code d i d n o t c o n t a i n any e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h i s a r e a , b ut i n 1975, an amendment t o the Code added the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n : S . 4 ( 2 ) . Where, i n an a p p l i c a t i o n i n w r i t i n g t o the b o a r d , a t r a d e - u n i o n d e c l a r e s t h a t i t i n t e n d s , f o r the purposes o f s e c t i o n 3 9 ( 1 ) , t o attempt t o persuade the employees o f a u n i t t o j o i n a t r a d e -u n i o n , the b o a r d may d i r e c t t h a t the employer o f t h o s e employees d e l i v e r t o the t r a d e - u n i o n a complete l i s t o f names, a d d r e s s e s and t e l e p h o n e numbers o f the employees i n the i n t e n d e d u n i t , o r b o t h , as r e q u e s t e d by t he t r a d e - u n i o n . 1975, C. 33, S. 3. T h i s new s e c t i o n d i d n o t e n j o y an o v e r l y l o n g l i f e and was sub-s e q u e n t l y d e l e t e d from t he Code by the amendments i n 1977. However, t h e r e C.L.R.A. v. I.B.E.W., B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 75/76 a t p. 38. - 63 -i s n o t h i n g i n the Code which e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t s the Board from g r a n t i n g t h i s t y p e o f remedy under i t s g e n e r a l a u t h o r i t y i n S e c t i o n 8(4)(b) "to r e c t i f y " an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . Hence, such an award c o u l d s t i l l be f o r t h c o m i n g i n s i t u a t i o n s where the Board would f e e l i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e . To d e t e r m i n e when t h i s would be l i k e l y , one can r e f e r t o the d e c i s i o n s o f the Board d e a l i n g w i t h the o l d S e c t i o n 4 ( 2 ) ( b ) . 165 In the B r i t i s h Columbia Railway Company c a s e , the Board d e a l t a t some l e n g t h w i t h t h i s i s s u e . The Board had r e c e i v e d o b j e c t i o n s from the employees t h a t t h i s was " c l a s s i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n " o r t h a t t h e y d i d not wish t o be b o t h e r e d a t home by union o r g a n i z e r s . O b j e c t i o n s from the employer i n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n was d e s i g n e d o n l y t o p r o v i d e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e 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 had been made and i n any e v e n t t h a t as t h i s was a d i s c r e t i o n a r y remedy, the Board s h o u l d f o l l o w t h a t p o l i c y even i f the s e c t i o n d i d not r e a d p r e c i s e l y t h a t way. T h e i r argument was t h a t , as t h i s was a s e c t i o n d e s i g n e d t o f a c i l i t a t e t he u n i o n s p e r s u a d i n g the employees to v o t e f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n , i t o n l y made sense t o g r a n t i t p r i o r to the c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The Board d i s c u s s e d t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s a t some l e n g t h and c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e were a number o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t would make t h i s t y p e o f o r d e r a u s e f u l t e c h n i q u e . In cases where t h e r e may be employees whose e x i s t e n c e i s unknown to the u n i o n , e.g. i n i n d u s t r y - w i d e b a r g a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s , o r a l a r g e and g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d i s p e r s e d membership, a l a c k o f knowledge c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r s t a t u s may u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e the v o t e o r even i f a c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s g r a n t e d , a f f e c t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t r a d e u n i o n and the " i g n o r e d B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 20/76. - 64 -members" a f t e r the v o t e . However, the Board d i d n o t make such an o r d e r as a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e . 166 The u n i o n ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign must have been an "imminent r e a l i t y " and n o t m e r e l y a p l o y by t h e union t o a c q u i r e the l i s t s w i t h o u t d o i n g any p r i o r groundwork. By a d o p t i n g t h i s p o l i c y the Board e s s e n t i a l l y f o l l o w e d the p o l i c y o f the N.L.R.B. i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . In the U.S., where e l e c t i o n s a r e the normal method o f o b t a i n i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n and t h e e m p l o y e r s , as we have s e e n , do have c o n s i d e r a b l y more l a t i t u d e i n e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r o p i n i o n , the r e q u i r e -ment to f u r n i s h t h e union w i t h t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s q u i t e commonplace. A f t e r q u o t i n g a t l e n g t h from the E x c e l s i o r U n d e r w e a r ^ 7 case i n the U.S., the B.C. Board e x p r e s s e d the o p i n i o n t h a t t h i s remedy would s t i l l be v a l u a b l e here i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o u t l i n e d above. T h e r e f o r e , i t would seem a t t h i s time t h a t the Board would have the a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e such an o r d e r under S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( b ) but o n l y i n the e v e n t t h a t an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e has been committed and t h a t i t f e l t t h a t the u n i o n ' s a c c e s s t o t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n would e f f e c t i v e l y c o u n t e r - b a l a n c e t h a t b r e a c h o f the Code. (5) Make Whole Remedy One o f the more c r e a t i v e approaches t a k e n under the r e c t i f i c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s has been the "make whole" remedy. The e s s e n c e o f t h i s remedy i s to r e s t o r e the s i t u a t i o n t o t h a t which would have e x i s t e d but f o r the u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . I t s h o u l d remove the b e n e f i t s t o be g a i n e d from s t a l l i n g o r o t h e r r e l a t e d t a c t i c s . T h i s type o f o r d e r i s most e f f e c t i v e (1966) CCH N.L.R.B. P a r a . 20,180. - 65 -where t h e r e has been r e p e a t e d o r f l a g r a n t v i o l a t i o n s o f the A c t s . The ob-j e c t i v e o f o r d e r i s t o g i v e " e f f e c t i v e r e d r e s s f o r a s t a t u t o r y wrong ... to compensate the p a r t y wronged and w i t h h o l d from the wrong-doer the f r u i t s * •+ • i +• ..168 o f i t s v i o l a t i o n . When one a l s o l o o k s a t the broad powers c o n f e r r e d by S e c t i o n 27 and p a r t i c u l a r l y by the amendments i n S e c t i o n 28 o f the B.C. Code, i t i s appar-e n t t h a t the Board's r e m e d i a l powers are e x t e n s i v e enough t o s u p p o r t t h e s e o r d e r s . The Board i t s e l f n o t e s : The l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y u n d e r l y i n g t h i s e x p a n s i o n o f t h e Board's r e m e d i a l a u t h o r i t y has a t l e a s t two d i m e n s i o n s : f i r s t t o e s t a b l i s h a w i d e r range o f a l t e r n a t i v e remedies i n the law and t o e l i m i n a t e any a r t i f i c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on the t y p e o f remedy which may be o r d e r e d ; and s e c o n d l y , t o p r o v i d e the B o a r d , which i s the c h i e f agency f o r g i v i n g e f f e c t t o the law, w i t h a g e n e r a l mandate to d e s i g n and a p p l y remedies which w i l l r espond to the needs o f t h e p a r -t i c u l a r l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s d i s p u t e o r p r o b l e m i n hand. (See Debates o f t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly (Hansard) 5th Session,, June 25, 1975, e s p e c i a l l y a t pp. 3973 to 3 9 7 5 ) . 1 6 9 In the U n i t e d S t a t e s where t h i s remedy o r i g i n a t e d , the N.L.R.B. has o r d e r e d the employer t o r e i m b u r s e the union and the Board f o r l i t i g a t i o n e xpenses, m a i l c o p i e s o f the Board's n o t i c e t o each employee o r g i v e the u n i o n a c c e s s t o the u n i o n ' s b u l l e t i n b o a r d . ^ In the U.S. the N.L.R.B. has o r d e r e d the u n i o n t o be "made whole" by r e q u i r i n g the employer, i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o compensate the u n i o n K i d d B r o s . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (68) a t p. 321 q u o t i n g I.U.E.W. v. N.L.R.B. v. T i i d e e P r o d u c t s I n c . ( T i i d e e #1) 426 F2d 1243 (1970). 1 6 9 K i d d B r o s . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (68) a t p. 322. 1 7 0 T i i d e e P r o d u c t s , I n c . , 194 N.L.R.B. 1234 (1972). - 66 -f o r l a w y e r ' s f e e s , l i t i g a t i o n expenses and e x t r a o r d i n a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n a l 171 172 c o s t s . The N.L.R.B. i n the E x - C e l l o - 0 case remedied an employer's r e f u s a l t o b a r g a i n by o r d e r i n g t he l a t t e r t o compensate a l l employees t o the e x t e n t t h a t they would have r e c e i v e d wages and b e n e f i t s i f the employer had b a r g a i n e d , i . e . n o t committed t he u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s . The two major cases i n which the B.C. Board has adopt e d t h i s remedy i n v o l v e d a g r e a t deal more than "employer f r e e s p e e c h " . In both cases t he employer had a l s o committed numerous u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s ( e . g . d i s m i s s a l o f employees, f a i l u r e to b a r g a i n i n good f a i t h ) and had n o t p r o p e r l y obeyed p r e v i o u s o r d e r s o f the Board. The purpose o f t h i s remedy a c c o r d i n g t o P a u l W e l i e r , f o r m e r C h a i r -man o f the B.C. Board, i s t w o - f o l d . I t expands the type o f r e l i e f a union can e x p e c t i f i l l e g a l l y f r u s t r a t e d by an employer and s e c o n d l y , i t a c t s as 173 a s t r o n g " d i s i n c e n t i v e " f o r the employers t o v i o l a t e t h e code. In t he K i d d Bros, c a s e , t he Board made e x t e n s i v e r e f e r e n c e t o i t s l e t t e r d e c i s i o n i n the Robinson L i t t l e case and then summarized the s i t u a -t i o n when a "make whole" remedy would i s s u e : The r e s u l t o f t h i s c o n d u c t has meant t h a t t he Union has n e v e r o b t a i n e d t he r i g h t s and s t a t u s i t s h o u l d have o b t a i n e d w i t h c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Because o f the Employer's c o n t r a v e n t i o n s , t h e Union's e f f o r t s have been a f u t i l e e x e r c i s e , whereas the Employer through i t s c o n t r a v e n t i o n s has a c h i e v e d t he o b j e c t i v e i t has o b v i o u s l y d e s i r e d from t he o u t s e t . The Employer has m I . U . E . W . v. N.L.R.B. v. T i i d e e P r o d u c t s I n c . ( T i i d e e #2), 440 F2d 298 (1970); I.E.U.W. v. N.L.R.B.; T i i d e e P r o d u c t s I nc. v. N.L.R.B. ( T i i d e e #3) 502 F2d 349 (1974); N.L.R.B. v. Heck's I n c o r p o r a t e d 433 F2d 541 (1970); Food S t o r e Employees Union v.N.L.R.B. 476 F2d 546 (1973). 1 7 2 1 8 5 N.L.R.B. 107 (1970). 173 In an i n t e r v i e w p u b l i s h e d i n the Vancouver Sun, August 9, 1977. - 67 -f o u g h t o f f , w a i t e d o u t and u l t i m a t e l y d e f e a t e d t h e Union's p r e s e n c e and s u p p o r t among i t s employees. In sum, the o r i g i n a l c h o i c e by the m a j o r i t y o f employees, i n f a v o u r o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g t h r o u g h t r a d e - u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , has been t o t a l l y a b o r t e d by the p e r s i s t e n t i l l e g a l c o n d u c t o f t h e Employer. In t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a c e a s e and d e s i s t o r d e r which m e r e l y r e q u i r e d the Employer t o comply w i t h the Code i n the f u t u r e would be o f no more r e m e d i a l v a l u e than the p r e v i o u s o r d e r s . In the words o f t h e C o u r t i n T i i d e e #1, the Employer has a l r e a d y h a r v e s t e d the " f r u i t s o f i t s v i o l a t i o n s " . Moreover, i t would n o t i n o u r view be c o n s i s t e n t o r i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f the o b j e c t s and p o l i c i e s o f the Code as s e t o u t i n S. 27. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t would n o t enhance the o b j e c t s s e t o u t i n S. 2 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) s i n c e i t would m e r e l y f r e e z e the s t a t u s quo and thus g i v e encouragement t o an employer who would engage i n u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s f o r the purpose o f a v o i d i n g "the p r a c t i c e and p r o -cedure o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g between employers and t r a d e - u n i o n s as t h e f r e e l y chosen r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f employees". F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , the Board has con-c l u d e d t h a t t h i s c a s e i s an a p p r o p r i a t e one f o r the i s s u a n c e o f a "make whole" o r d e r . ' 7 4 In K i d d Bros, the Board n o t e d t h a t i t was u s i n g t h i s remedy because the employees' s u p p o r t f o r the u n i o n c o u l d n o t be r e c a p t u r e d . The Board may o r d e r t h a t a union be compensated f o r expenses where c e r t i f i c a t i o n had been a c h i e v e d by the u n i o n but then l o s t due t o the em-p l o y e r ' s a c t i o n which had been d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the l o s s o f s u p p o r t f a i l s even t o u n i l a t e r a l l y o b t a i n a c e r t i f i c a t i o n . However, t h i s "make whole" remedy i s n o t a u t o m a t i c ; i t i s o n l y i n e v i t a b l e where the employers use such u n f a i r t a c t i c s t h a t t h i s t ype o f o r d e r i s the i n e v i t a b l e compensa-t i o n f o r t h e u n i o n ' s f u t i l e e f f o r t s and e x p e n s e s . ^ 175 among the employees. 176 I t may a l s o be used i n a s i t u a t i o n where the u n i o n 174 K i d d B r o s . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (68) a t pp. 324-5. 175 I b i d . 176 I b i d . 177 F a i rmont, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 8 ) . - 68 -I t must be remembered t h a t we a r e d i s c u s s i n g a remedy and n o t the i m p o s i t i o n o f a p e n a l t y . To t h i s end, the v i o l a t i o n o f the Code must have r e s u l t e d i n l o s s e s t o the union which can o b j e c t i v e l y be a s s e s s e d . In K i d d Bros, the B.C. Board has o r d e r e d the employer t o pay $5,000 to r e i m b u r s e the union f o r t h e payment o f l a w y e r ' s f e e s , l i t i g a t i o n expenses and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l expenses which were d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the Employ-e r ' s m i s c o n d u c t . More r e c e n t l y , Robinson L i t t l e was o r d e r e d t o . p a y the f o l l o w i n g : (1) $7,892.67 f o r c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n expenses i n c u r r e d by the union d u r i n g i t s r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n o f Kami oops workers between December 1 , 1974 and September 30, 1976; (2) $12,965.65 f o r l e g a l c o s t s i n c u r r e d by the u n i o n d u r i n g the d i s p u t e ; (3) $22,885 to the e i g h t f i r e d w o r k e r s ; (4) $4,500 t o the a t t o r n e y - g e n e r a l ' s department; (5) In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s an amount s t i l l t o be d e t e r m i n e d t h a t was a b s o r b e d by the union i n i t s work on the c h a i n ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e . T h i s remedy i s u n d o u b t e d l y v e r y e f f e c t i v e b ut o b v i o u s l y w i l l o n l y be used i n extreme cases and when the v i o l a t i o n s o f the code have been f r e -quent and e x t e n s i v e . (6) A u t o m a t i c C e r t i f i c a t i o n In t h e case o f u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s , one o f the s e v e r e s t and most e f f e c t i v e d i s i n c e n t i v e s would be the a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f the u n i o n i n the f a c e o f the commission o f such a c t i o n by the employer. The e f f e c t o f - 69 -t h i s remedy would be to d i s c o u r a g e employers from u s i n g t h e s e t a c t i c s by 178 removing the b e n e f i t s o f t h i s u n l a w f u l c o n d u c t . We w i l l now examine how t h i s remedy i s h a n d l e d i n each j u r i s d i c t i o n , (a) B r i t i s h Columbia The B.C. Code c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s f o r the g r a n t i n g o f a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n where the Labour Board f e e l s i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e . S e c t i o n 43(3) s t a t e s : N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any o t h e r p r o v i s i o n , where the board 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 v o t e i s u n l i k e l y t o d i s c l o s e the t r u e wishes o f t h e employees, the b o a r d may c e r t i f y o r r e f u s e t o c e r t i f y t h a t t r a d e - u n i o n as the b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t f o r the u n i t w i t h o u t d i r e c t i n g t h a t a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n vote be t a k e n ; but the b o a r d may impbse such c o n d i t i o n s as i t c o n s i d e r s n e c e s s a r y o r . a d v i s a b l e upon the t r a d e - u n i o n , and, i f the c o n d i t i o n s are n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y f u l f i l l e d t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the b o a r d w i t h i n t w e l v e months from the date o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n , o r w i t h i n such l e s s e r p e r i o d o f time as the b o a r d may o r d e r , the c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be deemed t o be c a n c e l l e d . 1973 (2nd Sess..), C. 122, S. 43. S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) s t a t e s : S. 8(4) Where, on i n q u i r y , the b o a r d i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t an employer, t r a d e - u n i o n , o r o t h e r p e r s o n i s d o i n g , o r has done, any o f the a c t s p r o h i b i t e d by s e c t i o n 3, 4, 5, 6, o r 7, the b o a r d ... (e) may, i f the employees a f f e c t e d by the o r d e r a r e s e e k i n g t r a d e - u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , c e r t i f y o r r e f u s e t o c e r t i f y t he t r a d e - u n i o n , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t , by r e a s o n o f an a c t p r o h i b i t e d by s e c t i o n 3, 4, 5, 6, o r 7, t h e t r u e wishes o f the employees c a n n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d ; but the board may impose such c o n d i t i o n s as i t c o n s i d e r s n e c e s s a r y o r a d v i s a b l e upon the t r a d e - u n i o n , and, i f t h e c o n d i t i o n s are n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y f u l f i l l e d t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n of. the b o a r d w i t h i n t w e l v e months from the date o f the c e r t i f i c a t i o n , o r w i t h i n such l e s s e r p e r i o d o f time as t h e b o a r d may o r d e r , 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 . F orano, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 4 ) . - 70 -A l t h o u g h the s e c t i o n s appear s i m i l a r , t h e r e a re i n f a c t d i f f e r e n c e s . S e c t i o n 43(3) would seem t o a p p l y i n cases where a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e would o t h e r w i s e be a p p r o p r i a t e ; f o r example, i f between 45-55% o f the u n i t have s i g n e d union c a r d s and the Board f e e l s t h a t f o r whatever r e a s o n a vote would n o t i n d i c a t e the t r u e w i s h e s o f the employees then t h i s s e c t i o n c o u l d 179 be i n v o k e d . S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) on the o t h e r hand, can be used i n cases where t h e r e has been a f i n d i n g o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e , i . e . , a v i o l a -t i o n o f S e c t i o n s 3, 4, 5, 6 o r 7. I t i s w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n t h a t we a r e con-c e r n e d i n t h i s paper. In t he case o f an a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r d e r under S e c t i o n 8, the Board may impose any c o n d i t i o n s i t c o n s i d e r s n e c e s s a r y o r a d v i s a b l e upon the t r a d e u n i o n . F o r example, i n cases where the Board i s c o n c e r n e d about t he l e v e l o f t r a d e u n i o n commitment, i t might i s s u e as a c o n d i t i o n o f the c e r t i f i c a -t i o n o r d e r , a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e union h o l d r e g u l a r meetings w i t h t he employees o r c o n s t i t u t e a s p e c i a l committee t o pay p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o t h a t l o c a l . The mere f a c t t h a t an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e has been committed i s n o t a u t o m a t i c grounds f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n . -This remedy w i l l be w a r r a n t e d o n l y i f the employer's a c t i o n s were s e r i o u s enough t o o b s c u r e 180 the t r u e wishes o f the employees. F o r example, i f a company's o n l y b r e a c h o f the Code i s the i n i t i a t i o n o f a wage i n c r e a s e w h i l e c e r t i f i c a t i o n 181 was p e n d i n g , a c e r t i f i c a t i o n w i l l n ot be g r a n t e d . S i m i l a r l y , t h e f a c t 1 7 9 N o r t h America Wood P r e s e r v i n g Ltd.,B.C.L.R.B. L e t t e r D e c i s i o n , May 25, 1978. 1 8 0 C o n s u m e r P a l l e t , B . C . L . R . B . D e c i s i o n No. 37/74. 1 8 ^ Q u a d r a , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (119). - 71 -t h a t employees l e a v e t h e i r j o b s d u r i n g w o r k i n g hours t o a t t e n d a union m e e t i n g i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t grounds f o r a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f the u n i o n . Even i f the union had been i n v o l v e d i n the a c t i v i t y and thus been i n b r e a c h o f 1 g2 S e c t i o n 4 o f the Code, d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n would n o t be the p r o p e r remedy. The Board has h i s t o r i c a l l y h e l d t h a t t h i s remedy would o n l y be used i f i t f e l t t h a t the uni o n ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d r i v e had some momentum and 1 oo a m a j o r i t y was v e r y l i k e l y . T h e r e f o r e , they would not make an o r d e r 184 u n l e s s a s i g n i f i c a n t group o f the employees have been s i g n e d up and t h e r e f o r e t h e Board must make an i n f o r m e d judgment about t he c h o i c e the employees would have made i f t h e s e t a c t i c s had n o t been u s e d . 1 8 ^ The a c t i o n s o f the employer must s u f f i c i e n t l y i n f l u e n c e h i s t o t a l number o f employees t o the e x t e n t t h a t t h e i r t r u e w ishes cannot be d e t e r -1 QC mined. Where t h e r e i s some doubt, the Board would l o o k a t t h e b a l l o t s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t o f the union's s u p p o r t and i f the v o t e was c l e a r l y 1 oy a n t i - u n i o n , t he Board would not o r d e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n . With a l l t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s , i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h i s remedy has n o t been used v e r y o f t e n . 182 Utah Mines, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 40/74. 1 g3 Fo r a n o , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 4 ) . 184 Sandman Inn, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 23/75; Cam C h a i n , s u p r a , a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 8 ) . 185 Forano, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 4 ) . "J Qg Reddi Gas, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 9 ) . 1 8 7 I b i d . - 72 -In f a c t , i n the y e a r s 1976, 1977 and 1978, the B.C. Board g r a n t e d o n l y two such a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n s J 8 8 Of c o u r s e , i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t i n some cases where such a p p l i c a t i o n s have been made, t h e un i o n s have s u c c e e d e d i n u l t i m a t e l y a c q u i r i n g the r e q u i r e d s i g n a t u r e s t o o b t a i n t he c e r t i f i c a t i o n under S e c t i o n 45 o r 4 3 ( 3 ) . 190 The Board has i n d i c a t e d i t may t a k e a d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h t o a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r immediate c e r t i f i c a t i o n under S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) . In the 1 Ql Beechwood' J l c a s e , an a d d r e s s by the employer t o a c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e was deemed t o be i n t e r f e r e n c e under S e c t i o n s 3(1) and 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) which r e q u i r e a s t a n c e o f s t r i c t n e u t r a l i t y on h i s p a r t . In d i s c u s s i n g t he e n s u i n g a p p l i -c a t i o n under S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) , the Board seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t they w i l l l o o k more f a v o u r a b l y on t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n s i n the f u t u r e t o make t h i s s e c -t i o n a "working r e a l i t y " . The B oard w i l l now a p p l y t he f o l l o w i n g t e s t s : "In the f u t u r e a union a p p l y i n g under S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) need n o t demonstrate t h a t the employees' wishes c a n n o t f e a s i b l y be d e t e r m i n e d by a s e c r e t b a l l o t because o f employer u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s . Where as h e r e , p e r s o n s do n o t become employees because o f employer h i r i n g p r a c t i c e s and ah o r g a n -z a t i o n a l campaign i s f r u s t r a t e d as a r e s u l t , the , _ Board w i l l e n t e r t a i n a S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) a p p l i c a t i o n . " And f u r t h e r , 188 There were a t o t a l o f 17 r e q u e s t s i n 1978, 25 r e q u e s t s i n 1977 and 18 i n 1976, a c c o r d i n g t o the Annual Reports o f the Labour R e l a t i o n s B o ard i n t h o s e y e a r s . 189 Of the s i x t y a p p l i c a t i o n s under S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) , 28 o f t h o s e r e s u l t e d i n c e r t i f i c a t i o n under S e c t i o n 45 o r 4 3 ( 3 ) . 1 ^ B e e c h w o o d , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 3 ) . 191..., I b i d. 1 9 2 I b i d . , a t p. 31. - 73 -"The t e s t w i l l n o t r e q u i r e the union t o demonstrate t h a t m a j o r i t y s u p p o r t would have been " v e r y l i k e l y " . Such a t e s t i s n o t o n l y e x c e e d i n g l y d i f f i c u l t t o meet but can encourage an employer to t a k e d r a s t i c a c t i o n e a r l y i n the campaign. R a t h e r , the Board w i l l i n q u i r e whether i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t the Union would have a c h i e v e d m a j o r i t y s u p p o r t i n the absence o f employer i n t e r f e r e n c e . T h a t judgment w i l l depend n o t o n l y on the a c t u a l s t a g e o f the s i g n - u p d r i v e but the n a t u r e o f the employer i n t e r f e r e n c e and the l i k e l y e f f e c t s i t had on the employee c o n s t i t u e n c y . S e c t i o n 8 ( 4 ) ( e ) w i l l o n l y become a m e a n i n g f u l f e a t u r e o f t h e Code i f , l i k e S e c t i o n 3, i t s e r v e s t o p r e s e r v e t h e employee freedoms o f S e c t i o n 2; i t can o n l y do so i f the f o c a l p o i n t o f i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n v o l v e s n o t o n l y an assessment o f the momentum o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d r i v e , but a r e a l i s t i c a p p r a i s a l o f the l i k e l y e f f e c t s o f the c o n d u c t o f the employer. The Board w i l l a l s o c o n c e r n i t s e l f , as d i d the Forano Panel w i t h the p r o s p e c t s f o r s u c c e s s f u l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( b a s e d on a n u c l e u s o f membership s u p p o r t ) o f the employees i f the union i s c e r t i f i e d . " 1 9 3 The grounds a r e now t h e r e f o r w i d e s p r e a d use o f t h i s remedy. Cer-t a i n l y i f i t i s employed, the p r i c e an employer may p o t e n t i a l l y have to pay f o r an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e c o u l d be a s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r r e n t . The Board has r e p e a t e d l y s a i d t h a t the b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f t h i s s e c t i o n a r e t o be the employees,not the u n i o n . I t i s t o be used where the Board f e e l s the workers would have o p t e d f o r the u n i o n i f t h e y had n o t been i n f l u e n c e d by the employer. I t w i l l n o t be used to m e r e l y p u n i s h an employer f o r h i s c o n d u c t o r even t o appease an i n j u r e d u n i o n . T h i s remedy was n o t to be used as a t o o l f o r u n i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n ; the union must b a s i c a l l y do i t s own o r g a n i z a t i o n a l work. The c e r t i f i c a t i o n w i l l o n l y be i s s u e d i f t h e r e i s a base from which t o engage i n m e a n i n g f u l c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g so t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n would 9 3 I b i d . , a t p. 31-2. - 74 -not be j u s t a f u t i l e g e s t u r e . (b) O n t a r i o In O n t a r i o , a 1975 amendment changed t he s e c t i o n o f the Code d e a l i n g w i t h a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The o l d s e c t i o n r e a d : I f the Board i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t more than 50 p e r c e n t o f the employees i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t a r e members o f the t r a d e union and t h a t the t r u e w i s h e s o f the employees a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be d i s c l o s e d by a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e , the B o a r d may c e r t i f y the t r a d e u n i o n as b a r g a i n i n g agent w i t h o u t t a k i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e . Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t , R.S.O. 1960, C. 202, S. 7 ( 5 ) . Under the o l d t e s t , i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r the Board t o f i n d t h a t an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e had been committed. I t was a l s o t r u e t h a t the f a c t t h a t an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e was committed d i d n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t i n the c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f the u n i o n . The t e s t the Board would employ was c l e a r l y e n u n i c a t e d i n the Underwood M a n u f a c t u r i n g c a s e where i t was h e l d t h a t i f the employer's a c t i o n s were l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n the employees submerging t h e i r d e s i r e t o a c t i v e l y s u p p o r t the a p p l i c a n t , then a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e was u n l i k e l y t o 194 d i s c l o s e t h e i r t r u e w i s h e s . However, i n r e a l i t y , the e f f e c t o f t h i s s e c t i o n was t h a t n o r m a l l y the r e a s o n t h a t the t r u e w i s h e s would n o t be e x p r e s s e d was due t o some i n t i m i d a t i n g o r c o e r c i v e b e h a v i o u r by the employer. The wording o f the s e c t i o n p e r m i t t e d the Board t o a v o i d d i s c u s s i o n s o f whether a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n d i d o r d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e and they c o u l d l 3 H ( 1 9 5 2 ) 52 CLLC Par. 17040; see a l s o , Mi n i t Car Wash [1960] OLRB Rep. 361; C o n s t e l l a t i o n H o t e l [1974] OLRB Rep. 799. - 75 -m e r e l y s t a t e t h a t i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , an e x p r e s s i o n o f f r e e c h o i c e was un-l i k e l y . In e f f e c t , we s u g g e s t i t were i n d i r e c t l y stamping t h e b e h a v i o u r w i t h the c h a r a c t e r o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . The amended s e c t i o n now reads (as Sec. 7 a ) : "Where an employer o r emp l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n con-t r a v e n e s t h i s A c t so t h a t the t r u e w i s h e s o f the employees o f the employer o r o f a member o f the employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n are n o t l i k e l y t o be a s -c e r t a i n e d , and, i n the o p i n i o n o f the Board, a t r a d e union has membership s u p p o r t adequate f o r the purposes o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t f o u n d by the Board p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 6 t o be 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 , the Board may, on the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the t r a d e u n i o n , c e r t i f y t he t r a d e u n i o n as the b a r g a i n i n g agent o f t h e employees i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t . " 1975 S.O. C h a p t e r 76, S e c t i o n s 4(3) and 5. F o r the Board to accede t o t h e r e q u e s t f o r a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n under t h i s s e c t i o n , i t must be s a t i s f i e d : (a) t h a t the r e s p o n d e n t employer c o n t r a v e n e d the A c t ; and (b) t h a t the c o n t r a v e n t i o n was such t h a t the t r u e wishes o f t h e employees a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be a s c e r t a i n e d ; and ( c ) t h a t the a p p l i c a n t t r a d e u n i o n has membership s u p p o r t adequate f o r the purpose 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 . 1 9 5 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 f i r s t t e s t o f c o u r s e now means t h a t an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e must be committed. In t h e o r y , t h i s i s a change from the o l d s e c t i o n but we s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s was i n f a c t what was r e q u i r e d under the o l d s e c t i o n . The s e c o n d t e s t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Board must be c o n v i n c e d "by some o b j e c t i v e measure t h a t the c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h e A c t , whether by an Robin Hood M u l t i f o o d s L i m i t e d , [1976] OLRB Rep. 250. - 76 -o v e r t a c t o r s u b t l y s u b t e r f u g e i s so p e r v e r s e t h a t t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f a 196 m e a n i n g f u l e x p r e s s i o n o f employee views i s l o s t " . I t i s c l e a r t h a t the Board w i l l r e q u i r e an e x t r e m e l y s e r i o u s case o f employer m i s b e h a v i o u r be-f o r e i t c o n c l u d e s t h a t the e x e r c i s e o f f r e e w i l l has been s u p p r e s s e d t o such an e x t e n t t h a t a v o t e i s m e a n i n g l e s s . In the Winson C o n s t r u c t i o n L i m i t e d c a s e , t h e Board o b s e r v e d t h a t the t e s t to be used was t h a t on the b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h e employer's b e h a v i o u r had "such an i n t i m i d a t i n g e f f e c t t h a t employees might r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d to r e f r a i n from v o t i n g f o r t h e u n i o n no m a t t e r what t h e i r t r u e 197 f e e l i n g s about b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d by i t . T h i s , o f c o u r s e , can be a most d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n i n a s i t u a t i o n where the f a c t s a r e n o t o v e r w h e l m i n g l y one-s i d e d . The t h i r d p a r t o f the t e s t i n O n t a r i o r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e Board be o f the o p i n i o n t h a t enough workers wish t o be r e p r e s e n t e d ( d e s p i t e t h e employer's a c t i o n ) t h a t the i s s u a n c e o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n would n o t be a t o t a l l y f u t i l e e x e r c i s e . As i n B.C., t h i s remedy o f a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s n o t a v e h i c l e to "evade t h e consequences o f a v o t e b u t as a s u b s t i t u t e where a v o t e i s 198 r e n d e r e d n u g a t o r y by the employer's wrongdoings", ( c ) U n i t e d S t a t e s In the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e i s f o r a union t o s e c u r e 196 i y D I b i d . , a t p. 252. 197 Supra a t f o o t n o t e (49) a t p. 719. 1 no Smith Beverages L i m i t e d [1975] OLRB Rep. 956 a t 961 - 77 -b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s by w i n n i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n e l e c t i o n . E i t h e r p a r t y may p e t i t i o n the N.L.R.B. to h o l d an e l e c t i o n and i f a m a j o r i t y f a v o u r s t h e 199 u n i o n , then a c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s g r a n t e d . Under the T a f t H a r t l e y A c t , t h i s i s t he o n l y method o f o b t a i n i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n . A company can e x t e n d v o l u n t a r y r e c o g n i t i o n to a u n i o n on the b a s i s o f s i g n e d membership c a r d s o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e b u t i s i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e u n i o n have i n f a c t m a j o r i t y s u p p o r t i n o r d e r t o a v o i d a v i o l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n s 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) and 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f the A c t ( i . e . , employer p a r t i c i p a t i o n , dominance o r i n t e r f e r e n c e ) . In t h i s c a s e , the union has s t a t u s o n l y as an u n c e r t i f i e d a gent o f the e m p l o y e e s . 2 ^ However, a t h i r d method has a r i s e n which i s known as an N.L.R.B.-201 i s s u e d b a r g a i n i n g o r d e r . The U.S. Supreme C o u r t i n the G i s s e l d e c i s i o n o f 1969 s e t t l e d the i s s u e to the e f f e c t t h a t t h e Board c o u l d c e r t i f y i n a s i t u a t i o n where the u n i o n has d e m o n s t r a t e d (by c a r d s , e t c . ) t h a t t h e y have a m a j o r i t y but t h a t a f a i r e l e c t i o n would be i m p o s s i b l e due t o t h e u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s o f the employer. 202 The G i s s e l c a s e i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f u n f a i r , l a b o u r 203 p r a c t i c e s . The f i r s t s e t a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by such " o u trageous and p e r -v a s i v e " u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s t h a t the c o e r c i v e e f f e c t s c a n n o t be e l i m -i n a t e d by the use o f t r a d i t i o n a l remedies i n t h a t a f a i r e l e c t i o n c o u l d 199 U.S. Code, S e c t i o n 9. 2 0 0 M c D o w e l l , D. and Huhn, K., N.L.R.B. Remedies f o r U n f a i r Labour  P r a c t i c e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , Wharton S c h o o l , I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s U n i t , Report No. 12 a t p. 161. 201 Supra a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 3 ) . 2 0 2 T ^ I b i d. 203 P e t t i b o n e , Jon E., "Sec. 1 0 ( J ) B a r g a i n i n g O r d e r s i n G i s s e l Type Cases", Labour Law J o u r n a l , V o l . 26, O c t o b e r 1976, p. 648 a t 653. - 78 -n o t be h e l d . 2 0 4 Under t h i s h e a d i n g the Board w i l l n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t he un i o n show t h a t i t d i d i n f a c t have the s u p p o r t o f a m a j o r i t y o f the employees a t some . ^ 205 p o i n t . The Board can c e r t i f y a union where a m a j o r i t y c o u l d n o t be shown due t o the " f l a g r a n t and a t r o c i o u s " p r a c t i c e s o f the employer which i n c l u d e d i n t e r r o g a t i o n and s u r v e i l l a n c e which amounted t o c o e r c i o n and i n t i m i d a t i o n . The p r a c t i c e s which t he N.L.R.B. has f o u n d t o f a l l i n t o t h i s c a t e -70ft gory i n c l u d e t he d i s c h a r g e s o f a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f employees, the 207 t h r e a t o f c l o s i n g t he p l a n t , and e x c e s s i v e l y c o e r c i v e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , 208 inducements and t h r e a t s . In t h e s e s e r i o u s c a s e s , t he Board w i l l o r d e r t he employer t o b a r g a i n 209 ? m e i t h e r b e f o r e any v o t e i s taken o r a f t e r t h e u n i o n has l o s t an e l e c t i o n when i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t he union's s u p p o r t has been d e s t r o y e d . With the e x c e p t i o n o f such extreme cases as J . P. S t e v e n s , however, i t appears t h a t the Board w i l l i n p r a c t i c e s t i l l r e q u i r e the union t o show 204 Meat C u t t e r s L o c a l 576 v. N.L.R.B. 89 LRRM 3124 (1975). 2 0 5 J . P. Ste v e n s v. N.L.R.B. 441 F2d 514 (1971). 206 G i s s e l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 3 ) ; Welcome American F e r t i l i z e r Co. 179 N.L.R.B. 217 ( 1 9 6 9 ) 7 207 G i s s e l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 3 3 ) . 2 0 8 M a l 1 o w P l a t i n g Works I n c . 193 N.L.R.B. 600 (1 9 7 1 ) ; J . P. Stev e n s  & Co. v. N.L.R.B., s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 0 5 ) . 2 0 9 J o y S i l k M i l l s Inc. 85 N.L.R.B. 1239 (1949). 2 1 0 B e r n e 1 Foam P r o d u c t s Company 146 N.L.R.B. 1277 (1964). - 79 -i t d i d have m a j o r i t y s u p p o r t a t one tim e . The e f f e c t o f t h i s p r a c t i c e i s to make the l i n e between the f i r s t and second c a t e g o r i e s v e r y d i f f i c u l t to d i s c e r n . The s e c o n d c a t e g o r y under G i s s e l i s l e s s s e r i o u s o f f e n c e s which the Board s t i l l f e e l s has undermined the m a j o r i t y p o s i t i o n o f the employer. To use a b a r g a i n i n g o r d e r , however, the Board must e s t a b l i s h t h a t t he un i o n 211 had m a j o r i t y s u p p o r t a t one p o i n t . The C o u r t n o t e d , In f a s h i o n i n g a remedy i n the e x e r c i s e o f i t s d i s -c r e t i o n , t h e n , t he Board can p r o p e r l y t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e e x t e n s i v e n e s s o f an employer's u n f a i r p r a c t i c e s i n terms o f t h e i r p a s t e f f e c t on . e l e c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s and the l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e i r r e c u r r e n c e i n the f u t u r e . I f the Board f i n d s t h a t the p o s s i b i l i t y o f e r a s i n g t he e f f e c t s o f p a s t p r a c t i c e s and o f e n d u r i n g a f a i r e l e c t i o n ( o r a f a i r r e r u n ) by the use o f t r a d i t i o n a l r e m e d i e s , though p r e s e n t , i s s l i g h t and t h a t t h e employee s e n t i m e n t once e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h c a r d s would, on b a l a n c e , be b e t t e r p r o t e c t e d by a b a r g a i n i n g o r d e r , then such an o r d e r s h o u l d i s s u e . 2 ' 2 Under t h i s c a t e g o r y i t seems t h a t a b a r g a i n i n g o r d e r w i l l i s s u e when t h e r e a r e s e r i o u s t h r e a t s o f economic r e p r i s a l s r e l a t i n g t o employ-213 ment. The a c t u a l d i s c h a r g e o f employees, the t h r e a t o f d i s c h a r g e o r o -I n o -I r p l a n t c l o s u r e and promises o f s i g n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t s a r e examples where t h e r e i s a l o n g - l a s t i n g e f f e c t and a b a r g a i n i n g o r d e r w i l l be i s s u e d . 211 See McDowell, D. and Huhn, K., s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (200) a t p. 173-8; See a l s o : Gresmac Corp. 205 N.L.R.B. 1108 (1973); P e e r l e s s o f America  Inc. v. N.L.R.B. 484 Fd 1108 (1973). 2 1 2 G i s s e l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (33) a t p. 614. 2 1 3 F o t o m a t Corp. 202 N.L.R.B. 59 (1973); D. M.. R o t a r y P r e s s 208 N.L.R.B. 366 (1973); - I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t he s m a l l e r t he u n i t , t he more c o e r c i v e t he d i s c h a r g e i s l i k e l y t o be c o n s i d e r e d . 2 1 4 G r e a t A t l a n t i c and P a c i f i c Tea Company 210 N.L.R.B. 593 (1974) a t p. 593. 2 1 5 T e l e d y n e Dental P r o d u c t s 210 N.L.R.B. 435 (1974). - 80 -T h i s s e c o n d c a t e g o r y , however, i s r e a l l y o n l y an a d a p t a t i o n o f the p r o c e d u r e s which a r e used under S e c t i o n 45 i n B.C. and S e c t i o n 7(3) i n O n t a r i o t h a t w i l l p e r m i t c e r t i f i c a t i o n w i t h o u t a v o t e i f a m a j o r i t y o f the p i c employees a r e s i g n e d up. In t h e s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s , a v o t e would n o t even be n e c e s s a r y and the i s s u e o f l o s s o f union s u p p o r t would o n l y a r i s e i f employees who were opposed t o the union p e t i t i o n e d t o the Boards. In t h a t e v e n t , the Boards would l i k e l y i n s i s t they use the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e -dures a v a i l a b l e under the Codes ( S e c t i o n 52 i n B.C.; S e c t i o n 49(2) i n O n t a r i o ) . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, t h a t the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n c a nnot o c c u r i n the f i r s t t en months (and i n some c a s e s , even l o n g e r i n O n t a r i o ) a f t e r the c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The t h i r d c l a s s o f b e h a v i o u r under G i s s e l (minor o r l e s s e x t e n s i v e v i o l a t i o n s which c o n s t i t u t e minimal i n t e r f e r e n c e ) w i l l n o t g i v e r i s e t o a 217 b a r g a i n i n g o r d e r and the a g g r i e v e d p a r t y w i l l have to r e l y on o t h e r remedies and then win the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n e l e c t i o n . D. 1977 Amendments to the Labour Code o f B r i t i s h Columbia As n o t e d above, i n September 1977, a number o f amendments t o the Code were p a s s e d by the S o c i a l C r e d i t government. Some o f t h e s e have a 218 d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n t o the d o c t r i n e o f employer f r e e speech and can be In the U.S. i n the absence o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e a vote must be h e l d even i f a m a j o r i t y has been s i g n e d up - L i n d e n Lumber v. N.L.R.B. 419 U.S. 301 (1974). 21 7 S t r u s k n e s C o n s t r u c t i o n , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 1 1 1 ) ; i n t h i s c a s e , the employer c o n d u c t e d an i l l e g a l p o l l w i t h o u t any i n t e n t i o n o f undermin-i n g the u n i o n . 218 The f u l l t e x t o f t h e amendments to S e c t i o n 3 i s a t t a c h e d as Appendix I I I . - 81 -summarized as f o l l o w s : (1) the removal o f e x i s t i n g S e c t i o n s 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) and ( f ) 219 (2) the removal o f the p h r a s e "by any o t h e r means" from S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) (3) the a d d i t i o n o f a p h r a s e i n S e c t i o n 3(2) t o the e f f e c t t h a t n o t h i n g i n the A c t s h a l l be so i n t e r p r e t e d as t o l i m i t o r o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t the r i g h t o f the employer ... (g) t o communicate to an employee a s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t o r o p i n i o n r e a s o n a b l y h e l d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the employer's b u s i n e s s ... The removal o f S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) r e a l l y has v e r y l i t t l e e f f e c t be-cause the for m e r S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) - (which became 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) ) r e a l l y a c c o m p l i s h e s the same t h i n g . The removal o f S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( f ) i n i t s e n t i r e t y and t h e phr a s e "by any o t h e r means" from S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the l e g i s l a -t u r e was a t t e m p t i n g t o move toward l i m i t i n g the Board t o f i n d i n g v i o l a t i o n s which are s p e c i f i c a l l y c i t e d i n the A c t . There can a l s o be a case made f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the l e g i s l a t o r s w i s h t o c o n c e n t r a t e on s p e c i f i c t h r e a t e n i n g o r c o e r c i v e a c t s r a t h e r than on g e n e r a l a c t i v i t y t h a t may r e -s u l t i n i n t i m i d a t i o n i n the i n d i r e c t s ense o f d i s s u a s i o n . In o t h e r words, the purpose o f the amendment may be t o p r o h i b i t b e h a v i o u r t h a t i s c l e a r l y and o p e n l y i d e n t i f i e d as b e i n g u n a c c e p t a b l e and n o t o t h e r k i n d s o f a c t i v i t y which might be s u b j e c t i v e l y a s s e s s e d as i n v o l v i n g some degree o f i n f l u e n c e . S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) i s now a p p a r e n t l y more c l o s e l y a l i g n e d w i t h S e c t i o n 5 which r e s t r i c t s c o e r c i o n and i n t i m i d a t i o n . 219 The f o r m e r S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) has become S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) . - 82 -I t c e r t a i n l y appears t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e by the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( g ) has a t t e m pted to g i v e the employer some r i g h t t o e x p r e s s h i s o p i n i o n s . The Labour Board w i l l a t some p o i n t be r e q u i r e d t o s e t o u t new g u i d e l i n e s f o r e m ployers. To a v e r y l i m i t e d e x t e n t t h e employer was a b l e t o r e s p o n d t o i n a c c u r a c i e s and m i s s t a t e m e n t s under the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s and t h i s r i g h t has p r o b a b l y been e x t e n d e d . In p r a c t i c a l terms, t h e amend-ments have seemed to g i v e c l e a r l e g i s l a t i v e a p p r o v a l t o the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the employer does have an i n t e r e s t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaigns and s h o u l d be f r e e t o e x p r e s s h i s thoughts but t h i s freedom has been e x p l i c i t l y l i m i t e d t o f a c t s and o p i n i o n s t h a t : (1) r e l a t e t o the employer's b u s i n e s s and .(2) a r e r e a s o n a b l y h e l d . By i m p l i c a t i o n , i t would seem t h a t employer comments must r e l a t e t o h i s own b u s i n e s s and those c o n c e r n i n g unions i n g e n e r a l , a p a r t i c u l a r u n i o n o r o f f i c e r s t h e r e o f a r e n o t t o be p e r m i t t e d . F u r t h e r , even o p i n i o n s about h i s b u s i n e s s must be r e a s o n a b l y h e l d and i t w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y be an o b j e c t i v e t e s t which w i l l be a p p l i e d . I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t the Board w i l l a c c e p t o b j e c t i v e l y u n r e a s o n a b l e o p i n i o n s m e r e l y because they were made by an e x t r e m i s t who h o n e s t l y b e l i e v e d i n t h e i r a c c u r a c y . A l t h o u g h t h e s e amendments would appear to have opened the doors f o r some employer a c t i v i t y and thus o f c o u r s e the r e s u l t a n t o n s l a u g h t o f l i t i -g a t i o n ^ h a t has n o t been the c a s e , a t l e a s t t o t h i s p o i n t i n mid 1979. One must a l s o remember, o f c o u r s e , t h a t the g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n s i n S e c t i o n 3(1) s t i l l e x i s t and the Board c o u l d a l s o use t h e s e t o l i m i t v i r t u a l l y any b e h a v i o u r . - 83 -I t seems t h a t the t r e a t m e n t o f employer f r e e speech i n B.C. may v e r y w e l l be s e t t i n g on common ground w i t h t h a t o f the O n t a r i o and Canada Labour Boards. In the f u t u r e i t i s l i k e l y t h a t g u i d a n c e f r o m d e c i s i o n s o f t h o s e Boards w i l l be s o u g h t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g and c o n s t a n t l y r e d e f i n i n g the a c t u a l parameters o f the d o c t r i n e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. - 84 -CHAPTER I I I D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n A. I n t r o d u c t i o n Each o f the j u r i s d i c t i o n s a l s o have p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e i r Labour Codes which e n a b l e d i s a p p o i n t e d employees d e m o c r a t i c a l l y t o remove a u n i o n i f a m a j o r i t y o f t h e membership f e e l they a r e n o t b e i n g p r o p e r l y r e p r e s e n t e d . In each c a s e , a p r o c e d u r e has been d e s i g n e d t o e n a b l e the employees t o ex-p r e s s t h e i r t r u e wishes c o n c e r n i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , however, o f f e r s a n o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o an employer t o a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the development o f o u r s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . In t h i s s e c t i o n o f the p a p e r , we w i l l deal w i t h the r e s t r a i n t s which have been p l a c e d on employers who attempt to p a r t i c i p a t e a t t h i s p o i n t e i t h e r t h rough i n s t i g a t i o n o r i n d i r e c t encouragement o f the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n . B. The American Approach Under S e c t i o n 9 o f the N a t i o n a l Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t , any employee o r group o f employees may f i l e a p e t i t i o n which a l l e g e s t h a t the c e r t i f i e d u n ion i s no l o n g e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the employees. The Labour B o a r d , a f t e r i n v e s t i g a t i n g the f a c t s , w i l l d e t e r m i n e whether t o u p h o l d o r d i s m i s s the a p p l i c a t i o n . From t h e s t r i c t w o r ding o f the A c t , i t i s c l e a r t h a t the employer i s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o f i l e such a p e t i t i o n w i t h the Board and i f he does s o , the p e t i t i o n w i l l be i n e f f e c t i v e . However, the r e a l problems a r i s e i n s i t u a t i o n s where the employer's a c t i o n s a r e more i n d i r e c t . I n i t i a l l y , the N.L.R.B. took the view t h a t an employer s h o u l d remain c o m p l e t e l y n e u t r a l as the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s - 85 -was f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f and must be c o n d u c t e d s o l e l y by the employees. Any i n t e r f e r e n c e by the employer then was grounds f o r d e n i a l o f the c e r t i f i c a -t i o n p e t i t i o n . The Board had, i n e f f e c t , i n t e r p r e t e d the r e s t r i c t i o n on who c o u l d f i l e t h e p e t i t i o n to a p p l y to the e n t i r e d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s . In t h o s e e a r l i e r c a s e s , the type o f b e h a v i o u r which was h e l d t o c o n t r a v e n e the A c t i n c l u d e d : . (1) The g i v i n g o f a d v i c e t o the employees and/or the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the p e t i t i o n by the e m p l o y e r . 2 2 ^ (2) The p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e o f t h e employer o r management a t the time employees a r e asked t o s i g n t h e d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n . (3) The use o f the employer's a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t the i n t e r e s t s o f the employees i n the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the p e t i t i o n o r a t the 222 a c t u a l h e a r i n g . (4) The c i r c u l a t i o n o f the p e t i t i o n on company time and p r o p e r t y w h i l e d e n y i n g the u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c c e s s t o the employ-223 ees under s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . In each o f t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , t he Board took the p o s i t i o n t h a t the employer was a t t e m p t i n g t o do i n d i r e c t l y what he c o u l d n o t do d i r e c t l y , t h a t i s , f i l e the p e t i t i o n t o remove the u n i o n h i m s e l f . 2 2 0 C o n s o l i d a t e d B l e n d e r s Inc. 118 N.L.R.B. 545 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ; Bond S t o r e s  Inc. 116 N.L.R.B. 1929 (1956); G o l d Bond I n c . 107 N.L.R.B. 1059 (1954). 2 2 ^ C o n s o l i d a t e d B l e n d e r s , supra, a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 2 0 ) . ppp ^ ^ C o n s o l i d a t e d B l e n d e r s , i b i d . ; Bond S t o r e s .Inc., s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 2 0 ) ; G o l d Bond I n c . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (220). 223 C o n s o l i d a t e d B l e n d e r s , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 2 0 ) . - 86 -However, i n the l a t e f i f t i e s , the N.L.R.B. a l t e r e d i t s p o s i t i o n . I t a d o p t e d t he view t h a t employer p a r t i c i p a t i o n , w h i l e p o t e n t i a l l y an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e , was an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m a t t e r and was n o t l i t i g a b l e i n the 224 d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . T h i s was i n c o n f l i c t w i t h many o f i t s e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s and the Board u l t i m a t e l y d e c i d e d the m a t t e r i n Union  M a n u f a c t u r i n g Company. The Board s t a t e d t h a t i t would c o n t i n u e i t s l o n g - s t a n d i n g p o l i c y o f n o t r e v i e w i n g p e t i t i o n s m e r e l y because i t i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e was s u p e r v i s o r y i n f l u e n c e e x e r t e d . However, the Board n o t e d t h a t i t s r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s had c a s t some doubt upon i t s p o s i t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t he i s s u e o f "employer i n i t i a t i o n o r i n s t i g a t i o n o f , o r a s s i s t a n c e i n the f i l i n g o f a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n " . 2 2 ^ The Board then went on t o e s t a b l i s h t he f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : We have c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d and r e a p p r a i s e d t he r e l a t i v e advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f r e t a i n i n g , as an e x c e p t i o n t o the g e n e r a l r u l e , t he p r a c t i c e o f a l l o w i n g i s s u e s o f employer i n s t i g a t i o n o f , o r a s s i s -t a n c e i n , t h e f i l i n g o f the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n t o be l i t i g a t e d i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . I t i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t t he same f a c t o r s which weigh a g a i n s t p e r m i t t i n g l i t i g a t i o n o f u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c -t i c e m a t t e r s i n o t h e r t y p e s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c a s e s a r e p r e s e n t , and s h o u l d l i k e w i s e p r e v a i l , i n d e c e r t i -f i c a t i o n c a s e s . I f t h e r e i s a b a s i s f o r a l l e g i n g employer r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the f i l i n g o f a d e c e r t i -f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n , t h e Board's c o m p l a i n t p r o c e d u r e s p r o v i d e a forum i n which such an i s s u e may be p r o p e r l y l i t i g a t e d , and an a p p r o p r i a t e remedy o b t a i n e d . A t the same t i m e , v a l i d d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n s may be p r o c e s s e d w i t h a minimum o f c o m p l i c a t i o n and d e l a y . ^ G e o r g i a K r a f t Company 120 N.L.R.B. 806 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ; Park Drug  Company (1959) 122 N.L.R.B. 878. 2 2 5 1 2 3 N.L.R.B. 1633 (1959). 2 2 6 I b i d . , a t p. 1634. - 87 -A c c o r d i n g l y , we h e r e i n e n u n c i a t e t he Board p o l i c y to e x c l u d e from d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n c a ses any e v i d e n c e o f employer p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f the p r o c e e d i n g , whether t h e a l l e g e d e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n s to showing o f i n t e r e s t o r t o employer r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the f i l i n g o f the p e t i t i o n . 2 2 ' By a d o p t i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n , the Board e f f e c t i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d p r o -c e d u r a l r o a d b l o c k s t o c o m p l i c a t e the f i l i n g o f a c o m p l a i n t c o n c e r n i n g employer i n t e r f e r e n c e . In e f f e c t , a u n i o n c o u l d l o s e the v o t e and be de-c e r t i f i e d and then have t o f i l e a s e p a r a t e c o m p l a i n t o f an u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e . P r a c t i c a l l y , b e s i d e s b e i n g a n u i s a n c e , t he e n s u i n g time d e l a y c e r t a i n l y does n o t argue w e l l f o r t h e union's changes o f m a i n t a i n i n g member-s h i p s u p p o r t which a f t e r a l l , i s even more c r i t i c a l than the n a t u r e o f any rem e d i a l a c t i o n taken by the Board. The n e t e f f e c t then o f t h i s p o s i t i o n i s t o t r e a t the d e c e r t i f i c a -t i o n problem i n the same way; as employer i n t e r f e r e n c e d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign. As we have seen i n the e a r l i e r p a r t o f the p a p e r , the employer i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s i s a b l e under t h e d o c t r i n e o f - - f r e e speech to v i g o r o u s l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n an attempt to d e f e a t t he u n i o n . The b a s i c p h i l o s o p h y o f the N.L.R.B. f a v o u r s t h i s both i n terms o f i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t and i t s r e l u c t a n c e t o i n v o k e remedies which t r u l y d i s c o u r a g e u n a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o u r . The same ty p e s o f campaign propaganda such as i n t e r r o g a t i o n s and s u g g e s t i o n s o f r e p r i s a l s can o f t e n be employed d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d p r e c e e d i n g a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n v o t e and t he p r o c e s s i s s u b j e c t to the same k i n d s o f abuses. T h i s s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r s q u i t e d r a m a t i c a l l y from t h a t taken by the Labour Boards i n Canada. I t i s t o t h e s e t h a t we w i l l now t u r n o u r a t t e n t i o n . I b i d , a t p. 1634. - 88 -C. O n t a r i o The Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t o f O n t a r i o a l s o c o n t a i n s a p r o v i s i o n which a l l o w s a d i s s a t i s f i e d membership t o remove i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from t h e i r p o s i t i o n . S e c t i o n 49(3) o f the A c t s t a t e s : "Upon an a p p l i c a t i o n under s u b s e c t i o n 1 o r 2, the Boa r d s h a l l a s c e r t a i n t h e number o f employees i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t a t the time t h e a p p l i c a t i o n was made and where n o t l e s s than 45 p e r c e n t o f t h e employees i n t h e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t have v o l u n t a r i l y s i g n i f i e d i n w r i t i n g a t such time as i s d e t e r m i n e d under c l a u s e ( j ) o f s u b s e c t i o n 2 o f s e c t i o n 92 t h a t t h e y no l o n g e r w i s h to be r e p r e s e n t e d by the t r a d e u n i o n , and n o t l e s s than 45 p e r c e n t have so s i g n i f i e d , t h e Board s h a l l , by a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e , s a t i s f y i t s e l f t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f the employees d e s i r e t h a t the r i g h t o f th e t r a d e union on t h e i r b e h a l f be t e r m i n a t e d . " However, b e f o r e t h e O n t a r i o Board i s s u e s a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r d e r under t h i s s e c t i o n , i t r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n meet some f a i r l y r i g i d t e s t s . F i r s t o f a l l , t h e i n t e n t o f the employees must be c l e a r l y t o de-c e r t i f y the union and any r e a s o n a b l e doubt as t o the a c t u a l meaning o f the 228 w o rding o f any documentation w i l l be f a t a l t o t h e p e t i t i o n . T h i s i s n o t to say t h a t the Board w i l l be o v e r l y l e g a l i s t i c i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e t r u e meaning o f the words, b u t t h e r e must be no q u e s t i o n i n the Board's mind t h a t 229 the rank and f i l e c o u l d have m i s i n t e r p r e t e d the document. 230 In t h e Armbro M a t e r i a l s and C o n s t r u c t i o n L t d . c a s e , t h e Board r e v i e w e d s i t u a t i o n s where i t had r e j e c t e d p e t i t i o n s : 228 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union o f D o l l & Toy Workers o f the U.S.A. and  Canada L o c a l 905. L1977J0LRB Rep. 534; B e n t l e y ' s S p o r t i n g Goods L t d . 59 CLLC 18, 129 (1959). 2 2 9 W e s t i n g h o u s e Canada L i m i t e d [1977] OLRB Rep. 641. 2 3 0 [ 1 9 7 6 ] OLRB Rep. 743. - 89 -15. T h i s Board has on numerous o c c a s i o n s i n the p a s t a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f t o d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the preamble t o p e t i -t i o n s i n both c e r t i f i c a t i o n and t e r m i n a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . The Board has r e j e c t e d p e t i t i o n s i n t h e form o f s i g n a -t u r e s on s e p a r a t e s l i p s o f paper l a t e r p a s t e d to a page b e a r i n g the preamble (N.D. A p p l e g a t e L t d . [1963] OLRB Rep. May 104); i n the form o f s i g n a t u r e s on s h e e t s o f p a p e r t h a t remain s e p a r a t e from the "preamble" o r formal s t a t e -ments o f i n t e n t i o n (Ray's Haulage L t d . [1963] OLRB Rep. Feb. 497 and B e n n e t t & W r i g h t L i m i t e d [1965] OLRB Rep. Nov. 514); i n the form o f two s h e e t s o f paper where the preamble appears on the f i r s t s h e e t and the s e c o n d s h e e t was s i g n e d b e f o r e the f i r s t was d r a f t e d and a t t a c h e d t o i t ( P r e s l a n d I r o n & S t e e l L t d . [1966] OLRB Rep. 817); i n t he form o f one o r more pages where the s i g n a t u r e s were p l a c e d upon them p r i o r t o t h e i n s e r t i n g o f the preamble ( D e V i l b i s s . ( C a n a d a ) L t d . ( B a r r i e ) [ I 9 6 0 ] OLRB Rep. Nov. 285) Boyle-Midway (Canada) L i m i t e d [1966] OLRB Rep. Dec. 697); ( F r a n c o n L t d . Ottawa U970T~0LRB A p r i l 71 and Arbo L e a t h e r Co. L t d . 1.1970] OLRB Nov. 855); where the w o r d i n g o f the preamble g i v e s r i s e to c o n f u s i o n between the l o c a l and t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l union ( P a t r i c k McKeon and  O t h e r Employees o f Hiram Walker & Sons L i m i t e d LI973] OLRB Rep. Nov. 6 0 3 ) ; where a t the time o f c i r c u l a t i o n . the p e t i t i o n bore o n l y a p r e l i m i n a r y s e n t e n c e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t was the s i g n a t o r i e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and the preamble was i n s e r t e d l a t e r (Wilson-Munroe Company [1973] OLRB Rep. 6 4 7 ) ; where some s i g n a t u r e s were o b t a i n e d p r i o r t o t he i n s e r t i o n o f the preamble and some a f t e r . a n d t he e v i d e n c e was u n r e l i a b l e as to the p r e c i s e p o i n t i n time when the preamble was i n s e r t e d (U.B.A. Chemical I n d u s t r i e s  L i m i t e d [1975] OLRB Rep. Mar. 1987^ However, d e s p i t e t h e s e extreme examples, i t s h o u l d be made c l e a r t h a t the Board i s n o t bound by any s t r i c t f o r m a l r e q u i r e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g the form t h e documents and o f c o u r s e , the p a r t i e s a r e always f r e e t o adduce a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e t o prove whether o r n o t the s i g n a t u r e s i n d i c a t e a 232 s i n c e r e d e s i r e f o r the t e r m i n a t i o n o f b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s . S e c o n d l y , i t must be shown t h a t the employees w i l l n o t o n l y be aware o f the a c t u a l meaning o f the document but a l s o t h a t i t would a c t u a l l y be I b i d . a t p a r a . 15. G e n e r a l I n d u s t r i e s L t d . [1976] OLRB Rep. 417. - 90 -233 used t o s u p p o r t a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s the s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t the e x p r e s s i o n o f d i s c o n t e n t be v o l u n t a r y . Any e v i d e n c e o f c o e r c i o n o r f o r c e w i l l r e n d e r the a p p l i c a t i o n i n e f f e c t i v e and i n many c a s e s , t h e Board has demanded v e r y c l e a r p r o o f t h a t the a c t u a l manner o f o b t a i n i n g t h e s i g n a t u r e s was beyond 234 r e p r o a c h . I t s h o u l d be o b s e r v e d a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t t h e O n t a r i o Board has i n d i c a t e d t h a t due t o the f a c t t h a t t h e r e must be a one y e a r p e r i o d from the date o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n b e f o r e a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n can be p r e -s e n t e d , i t i s l e s s i n c l i n e d " t o draw r e f e r e n c e s a d v e r s e t o the v o l u n t a r i -235 ness o f the s t a t e m e n t f i l e d " i n s u p p o r t o f d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , v e r y i s o l a t e d and i n s i g n i f i c a n t e v e n t s w i l l n o t cause t h e Board t o d i s m i s s 236 a p e t i t i o n . However, i t i s the i n t e n t t o which t h i s v o l u n t a r i n e s s i s a f f e c t e d by employer i n t e r f e r e n c e which i s t h e f o c u s o f the Board's a t t e n t i o n i n the c a s e s w i t h which we a r e c o n c e r n e d . 237 As e a r l y as 1962, the O n t a r i o Board i n t h e P i g g o t t c a s e i n d i c a -t e d t h a t i t would r e v i e w a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n u s i n g t h e same c r i t e r i a i t a p p l i e d i n the c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e . I t 233 M e s t i n g h o u s e Canada L i m i t e d , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (229) 2 3 4 J . A . K . E l e c t r i c a l C o n t r a c t o r s [1977] OLRB Rep. 275. 2 3 5 N - J S p i v a k L i m i t e d [1977] OLRB Rep. 462 a t p a r a . 6. 2 3 6 C C H Canada L i m i t e d [1977] OLRB Rep. 346. 2 3 7 S u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 4 4 ) . - 91 -i n d i c a t e d t h a t some employers would s t i l l n o t r e a l l y a c c e p t the r i g h t o f employees t o j o i n t r a d e unions and i n f e r r e d t h a t i n t e r f e r e n c e c o u l d l i k e l y o c c u r as e a s i l y a f t e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n as soon as t h e r e was any s i g n t h a t the u n i o n was Weakening. T h e r e f o r e , i n r e v i e w i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n , the Board s a i d t h a t i t would be c o n c e r n e d w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t the w i s h e s o f the employees were f r e e l y e x p r e s s e d and t h a t the employer d i d n o t b r i n g t o b e a r d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e upon them. The Board i s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d t h a t the o r i g i n a t i o n , p r e p a r a -t i o n and c i r c u l a t i o n i s n o t done i n such a manner t h a t i t i s " ... r e a s o n a b l e and l i k e l y t o be c o n s t r u e d by the employees as an open i n v i t a -2 t i o n t o p r o c l a i m t h e i r l o y a l t y t o t h e i r employer by s i g n i n g the p e t i t i o n . The B oard has i n d i c a t e d t h a t due t o the r e s p o n s i v e n a t u r e o f the employer/employee r e l a t i o n s h i p an employee i s p e c u l i a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e and what would o t h e r w i s e be q u i t e innocuous b e h a v i o u r may be s u f f i c i e n t t o t a i n t the p e t i t i o n . A v e r y b l a t a n t c a s e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e which would be c l e a r l y un-a c c e p t a b l e i s the d e l i v e r y o f a v e r y s t r o n g speech to a c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e by a p r i n c i p l e o f t h e c o m p a n y . 2 3 9 In a case where an employer has taken a v e r y h a r d a l t h o u g h l e g a l a n t i - u n i o n s t a n c e d u r i n g the e x i s t e n c e o f the u n i o n , the f a c t t h a t the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n was a d d r e s s e d t o the employer w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n v i n c e the B oard t h a t the document s u b m i t t e d d i d not. r e f l e c t the t r u e 'Peel B l o c k Co. L t d . (1963) 63 CLLC #16, 277 a t p. 1157. M i t t e n I n d u s t r i e s [1975] OLRB Rep. 154. - 92 -wishes o f the employees. The c u s t o d y o f the document t h r o u g h o u t the 241 p e r i o d i t i s b e i n g s i g n e d i s g i v e n g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e by the B o a r d . 242 In a n o t h e r c a s e , the f a c t t h a t the manager o f the company r e -q u e s t e d an employee to f i n d o u t what the o t h e r employees t h o u g h t even though he e x p l a i n e d t h e y had t o t a l freedom to choose, t h a t h i s s e c r e t a r y d r a f t e d and t y p e d the p e t i t i o n and t h a t i t was g i v e n t o the P r e s i d e n t o f the Board o f D i r e c t o r s t o d e l i v e r t o the Board was s u f f i c i e n t to cause t h e Board t o d i s m i s s the a p p l i c a t i o n . . In the York Condominium C o r p o r a t i o n No. 77 243 c a s e , the Board summarized i t s own t e s t s : ... c) The p e r s o n c i r c u l a t i n g the p e t i t i o n c annot d i s c u s s i t w i t h the employer; d) The p e r s o n c i r c u l a t i n g the p e t i t i o n s h o u l d n o t o b t a i n s i g n a t u r e s w i t h i n s i g h t o f a member o f management; . e) E v e r y s i g n a t u r e on the p e t i t i o n must be w i t n e s s e d and such w i t n e s s must t e s t i f y b e f o r e the Board on m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the p e t i t i o n , t he o b t a i n i n g o f the s i g n a t u r e s and the c i r c u l a t i o n o f the document i n q u e s t i o n ; f ) The p e t i t i o n must n o t l e a v e the p e r s o n ' s hand who c i r c u l a t e s i t - i f i t does, then the p e r s o n i t i s g i v e n to must appear b e f o r e the Board t o g i v e e v i d e n c e ; h) The p e r s o n c i r c u l a t i n g the p e t i t i o n must n o t a r r a n g e f o r time o f f w i t h pay t o a t t e n d the Board h e a r i n g ; i ) S h o u l d the p e r s o n c i r c u l a t i n g the p e t i t i o n have any member o f management s i g n i t f o r w h a t e v e r r e a s o n (even i f the member o f management b e l i e v e s he o r she i s i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t ) then a l l s i g n a t u r e s ^ u G e n w o o d I n d u s t r i e s L t d . [1976] OLRB Rep. 417 a t p a r a . 13. 241 V e r e d and Harvey Company L i m i t e d [1971] OLRB Rep. 736; Formosa  S p r i n g Brewery LI974] OLRB Rep. 604. 242 York Condominium C o r p o r a t i o n No. 7 7 [1977] OLRB Rep. 642. 2 4 3 I b i d . - 93 -s e c u r e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h a t o f the member o f manage-ment a r e d i s r e g a r d e d by t h e Board, and the p e t i t i o n may be r e j e c t e d a l t o g e t h e r ; j ) The p e r s o n c i r c u l a t i n g t he p e t i t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o r i g o r o u s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n by the Board on q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e o r i g i n a t i o n , p r e p a r a t i o n and c i r -c u l a t i o n o f the p e t i t i o n . 2 4 4 However, i n the absence o f any o t h e r i n t e r f e r e n c e t he mere f a c t t h a t 245 an employer r e f e r s t o c o u n s e l w i l l n o t i n c u r t he wrath o f the B o a r d . Of c o u r s e , i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t he employer would be w i s e t o r e f e r the employees t o la w y e r s who do n o t r e p r e s e n t t he company. S i m i l a r l y , a l t h o u g h foremen are management p e r s o n n e l , t h e i r ques-t i o n i n g o f the employees to " s a t i s f y t h e i r own n a t u r a l c u r i o s i t y about o c c u r r e n c e s i n t h e w o r k p l a c e " w i l l n o t c o n s t i t u t e grounds f o r d i s m i s s i n g the p e t i t i o n u n l e s s t he employees would, g i v e n t he s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , one. i n t e r p r e t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g as m a n a g e r i a l i n t e r f e r e n c e . The Board has a l s o r e f u s e d t o d i s m i s s an a p p l i c a t i o n m e r e l y be-cause a management member o f the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the 247 a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t e r m i n a t i o n . In t h a t c a s e , however, the employer had v o l u n t a r i l y r e c o g n i z e d t he un i o n and had i n no way i n t e r f e r r e d w i t h t he de-c e r t i f i c a t i o n . N e e d l e s s t o s a y , t h e l i n e here i s v e r y narrow and such b e h a v i o u r w i l l more o f t e n than not be f a t a l t o the employer u n l e s s , i t can be c l e a r l y shown t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e employee would b e l i e v e t h a t management was i n any way i n v o l v e d . 2 4 4 I b i d . , a t p. 644. 245 Wilson-Munroe Company [1976] OLRB Rep. 385. 246 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union o f D o l l & Toy Workers o f the U.S.A. and  Canada, L o c a l 905[1977]0LRB Rep. 534 a t p a r a s . 18 and 19. OA~7 Canadian Food and A l l i e d Workers L o c a l Union 633 [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 96. - 94 -The Board has a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n i s " n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t a i n t e d by p r i o r i n v o l v e m e n t i n a p e t i t i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n 248 to the c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f the t r a d e u n i o n . " D. Canada The Canada Labour R e l a t i o n s Board adopts much the same approach as t h e i r O n t a r i o c o u n t e r p a r t . The p r o v i s i o n r e l a t i n g t o d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s found i n S e c t i o n 138 o f the Canada Labour Code and the Board i s e q u a l l y h e s i t a n t to approve an a p p l i c a t i o n where t h e r e i s any e v i d e n c e o f employer i n t e r f e r e n c e . The k i n d s o f b e h a v i o u r o f which the Canada Board has e x p l i c i t l y d i s a p p r o v e d i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : (1) S e n i o r Management p e r s o n n e l m e e t i n g w i t h the employees t o "impress upon them t h a t i t was i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o r e s i g n 249 i m m e d i a t e l y " . (2) The c i r c u l a t i o n o f the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n on . . . 250 company pre m i s e s d u r i n g w o r k i n g hours. (3) The s u b m i s s i o n o f many o f the l e t t e r s o f r e s i g n a t i o n 251 from the u n i o n d i r e c t l y t o the employer. Each o f t h e s e a c t i o n s i s e v i d e n c e t h a t management e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y a p p roved o f o r i n f a c t e n c o u r a g e d the employees t o r e s i g n 248 N-J S p i v a k L i m i t e d , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (235) a t p a r a . 7 ; see a l s o  A r t i s t i c Woodwork Co. L t d . LI973] OLRB Rep. 691.; D e V i l b i s s (Canada!  L i m i t e d , F i l e 1349-76-R, (December 7, 1976); J.A.K. E l e c t r i c a l C o n t r a c t o r s , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (234). 249 CJRP Radio P r o v i n c i a l e L i m i t e e [1977] 1 Can. LRBR 238 a t p. 241. 250Ibid. 2 5 1 I b i d . - 95 -from the u n i o n . In cases where the b e h a v i o u r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y s e r i o u s , a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n v o t e would not i n d i c a t e the t r u e w i s h e s o f the employees and the f e d e r a l Board w i l l d i s m i s s the a p p l i c a t i o n . E. B r i t i s h Columbia The B r i t i s h Columbia Labour Code c o n t a i n s the f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n r e l a t i n g t o d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n : 52.(1) Where, a t any time a f t e r a t r a d e - u n i o n has been c e r t i f i e d f o r a u n i t o f employees, the b o a r d i s s a t i s f i e d , a f t e r such i n v e s t i g a t i o n as i t c o n s i d e r s n e c e s s a r y o r a d v i s a b l e , t h a t the t r a d e - u n i o n has c e a s e d t o be a t r a d e - u n i o n , o r t h a t the employer has c e a s e d to be the employer o f the employees i n t h e u n i t , i t may c a n c e l the c e r t i f i c a t i o n . (2) Where ten months have e l a p s e d a f t e r t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f a t r a d e - u n i o n , and a f t e r such i n v e s -t i g a t i o n as the b o a r d c o n s i d e r s n e c e s s a r y o r a d v i s -a b l e , which may i n c l u d e the t a k i n g o f a v o t e o f the employees i n 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 b o a r d i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t the t r a d e - u n i o n has c e a s e d t o r e p r e s e n t a m a j o r i t y o f the employees i n the u n i t , i t may c a n c e l the c e r t i f i c a t i o n . (3) Where the c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f a t r a d e - u n i o n as b a r g a i n i n g agent i s c a n c e l l e d under s e c t i o n 36 o f t h i s s e c t i o n , any c o l l e c t i v e agreement between the t r a d e -union and the employer o f the employees i n the u n i t i n r e s p e c t o f which the c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s c a n c e l l e d i s v o i d . S u b s e c t i o n 2 i s the c r i t i c a l p a r t o f t h i s s e c t i o n and i t i s upon i t t h a t we w i l l f o c u s o u r a t t e n t i o n . In one o f i t s d e c i s i o n s , the Labour Board compared t h i s s e c t i o n w i t h i t s p r e d e c e s s o r i n the Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t . S e c t i o n 1 2 ( 1 0 ) ( b ) o f t h a t A c t p e r m i t t e d d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o n l y i f the " t r a d e union had c e a s e d t o r e p r e s e n t the employees i n the u n i t " and t h e r e f o r e a c a n c e l l a t i o n o f the c e r t i f i c a t i o n would o c c u r o n l y i f t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t the union - 96 -252 was r e p r e s e n t i n g the employees i n any way. The t e s t under the p r e s e n t code i s t h a t the union must no l o n g e r r e p r e s e n t a m a j o r i t y o f the employees. T h e r e f o r e , the t e s t i s more con-c r e t e and the Board has w o r k a b l e c r i t e r i a on which t o base a d e c e r t i f i c a -t i o n d e c i s i o n . The Board has i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t w i l l n o t h e s i t a t e " t o c a n c e l c e r t i f i c a t i o n s i n t hose c i r c u m s t a n c e s where i t i s c l e a r t h a t u n i o n s have l o s t m a j o r i t y s u p p o r t and a r e unable to meet t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s t o 253 employees r e m a i n i n g i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t . " I t s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia l e a v e s i t to the d i s c r e t i o n o f the Board whether t o de-c e r t i f y o r n o t . U n l i k e O n t a r i o , where the w o r d i n g o f the A c t r e q u i r e s the Board must h o l d a v o t e i f 45% o f the employees r e q u e s t i t and then must be bound by the r e s u l t s o f t h a t v o t e , the B r i t i s h Columbia Code p e r m i t s 254 the Board g r e a t e r leeway. I t i s t r u e t h a t the O n t a r i o B o a r d i s a b l e t o e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i r e c t l y by t h e . r e q u i r e m e n t o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s but t h e r e does appear to be g r e a t e r s t a t u t o r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the B r i t i s h Columbia Board t o e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n any p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . I t seems t h a t d u r i n g the f i r s t two o r t h r e e y e a r s o f the Board's e x i s t e n c e (1974-76), i t was p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l u c t a n t to g r a n t d e c e r t i f i c a -255 t i o n s . T h i s was u n d o u b t e d l y due t o the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n Kootenay S a v i n g s C r e d i t Union B.C.L.R.B. #54/77; [1978] 1 Canadian LRBR 40. 253 I b i d . , a t p. 45. 254 See Kootenay C r e d i t S a v i n g s Union, i b i d . ; Hiram Walker and Sons [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 517. 2 5 5 F o r example, s e e : Wagner E n g i n e e r i n g B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 98/74; M e d i e v a l Inns B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 122/74. - 97 -o r d e r s would encourage more employer i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the f u t u r e and a l s o t h a t the u n i o n s needed time to e s t a b l i s h t h e m s e l v e s under the new Code. In one c a s e , Wagner E n g i n e e r i n g , the B oard i n r e s p o n s e t o a d e c e r -t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n a c t u a l l y v a r i e d the c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r d e r so t h a t a p o r t i o n o f t h o s e p r e v i o u s l y i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i o n c o u l d a t t a i n t r a d e . . 256 union s t a t u s . However, r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s - i n d i c a t e t h a t i t s r e l u c t a n c e i s n o t q u i t e as s t r o n g and d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be g r a n t e d i n cases where t h e r e i s 257 n o t h i n g more than v e r y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f employer i n t e r f e r e n c e . The Board w i l l , however, r e f u s e to d e c e r t i f y where the a p p l i c a t i o n i s b e i n g used as an i n d i r e c t method o f a c c o m p l i s h i n g something which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r s e c t i o n s o f the Code. F o r example, a v e r y f r e -q u e nt problem a r i s e s where the employees wish t o change a f f i l i a t i o n s and i n s t e a d o f u s i n g the " r a i d i n g " s e c t i o n (S. 3 9 - 2 ) , they w i l l a t t e m p t to 258 use S e c t i o n 52. In t h o s e c a s e s , the B oard w i l l d i s m i s s the a p p l i c a t i o n . A n o t h e r case where a c o n f l i c t has o c c u r r e d i s where t h e r e i s a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the i m p o s i t i o n o f a f i r s t c o n t r a c t by the Board under S e c t i o n 70 o f the Code. The Board has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t o d e c e r t i f y the union a t t h a t p o i n t when the whole purpose o f the f i r s t c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s i s t o g i v e the p a r t i e s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e v e l o p a s a t i s f a c t o r y r e l a t i o n s h i p would be i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o 259 the o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e s o f the Code. 2 5 6 S u p r a a  f o o t n o t e ( 2 5 5 ) . 257 See the r e a s o n i n g i n Kootenay S a v i n g s C r e d i t U n i o n , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (252). 2 5 8 S e e , f o r example, Hiram Walker and Sons, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (254), 2 5 9 D o m i n i o n D i r e c t o r y , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 65/75; [1975] 2 Canadian LRBR 345. - 98 -The Board w i l l a l s o r e f u s e t o d e c e r t i f y where t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f employer i n t e r f e r e n c e . There would seem to be a much s t r i c t e r approach to i n t e r f e r e n c e d u r i n g d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n than d u r i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l cam-p a i g n . A l t h o u g h what i s a c t u a l l y l a b e l l e d as i n t e r f e r e n c e by the Board would p r o b a b l y n o t d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y between t h e s e p e r i o d s ; d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms o f the r e s u l t s o f the b e h a v i o u r c o u l d be v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t . F o r example, s l i g h t o r minor i n t e r f e r e n c e d u r i n g an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l campaign may w e l l l e a d t o i n f o r m a l w r i s t s l a p p i n g o r a t w o r s t , a c e a s e and d e s i s t o r d e r to the employer. However, the same a c t i v i t y , even i f q u i t e i n -e f f e c t u a l d u r i n g a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n campaign, may w e l l cause the Board to deny a subsequent a p p l i c a t i o n . In the case o f d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n , the number o f a v a i l a b l e remedies i s l i m i t e d and the Board must e i t h e r t o t a l l y i g n o r e the a c t i v i t y o r deal w i t h i t q u i t e h a r s h l y . They have i n d i c a t e d t h a t they w i l l adhere to the f o l l o w i n g p o l i c y : As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h i s Board i s n o t a d v e r s e to c a n c e l l i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n s : however, i t i s i n c l i n e d t o move d e l i b e r a t e l y , f o r e x p e r i -ence has r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n c e o f employer i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the p r o c e s s . I n t e r f e r e n c e from t h i s q u a r t e r can c o n s t i t u t e i m p r o p e r i n f l u e n c e and d i s t o r t o r o b s c u r e the t r u e wishes o f t h e employees c o n c e r n e d . ... E v i d e n c e o f such i m p r o p e r i n f l u e n c e w i l l a l m o s t i n v a r i a b l y a b o r t an a p p l i c a -t i o n f o r d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n . 2 6 0 T h e r e f o r e , the e x i s t e n c e o f employer b e h a v i o u r which i s l i k e l y t o " h e i g h t e n the a n x i e t i e s o f c e r t a i n o f t h e employees i n v o l v e d and r e n d e r 26 s u s p e c t t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t endorsement o f the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n " Kootenay S a v i n g s C r e d i t U n i o n , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (252) a t p. 45. I b i d . , a t p. 46. - 99 -w i l l be grounds f o r d i s m i s s a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , o n g o i n g c o n d u c t which has p r e v e n t e d t he union from s o l i -d i f y i n g i t s s u p p o r t d u r i n g t he p e r i o d when i t has r e p r e s e n t e d t he workers which has u l t i m a t e l y l e d t o a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t w i l l be grounds f o r d i s m i s s a l o f the a p p l i c a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e Labour Board has i d e n t i f i e d c e r t a i n t y p e s o f b e h a v i o u r as c o n s t i t u t i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e which i s s e r i o u s enough to r e s u l t i n a d i s m i s s a l o f the d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . These i n c l u d e : (1) An i m p l i c a t i o n by t h e employer t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f the union . . . 262 i s p r e v e n t i n g an imminent wage i n c r e a s e ; (2) The c l a n d e s t i n e i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f the employees by the employer ,. . 263 o r h i s a g e n t ; (3) A c o n t i n u i n g r e f u s a l to b a r g a i n i n good f a i t h w i t h the union 264 which l e a d s t o d i s c o n t e n t among t h e rank and f i l e ; (4) The use by the d i s s i d e n t employees o f c o u n s e l who n o r m a l l y 265 a c t s . f o r t h e employer; (5) The payment by the employer o f some o f the expenses i n c u r r e d 266 by t he group o f employees s e e k i n g d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n ; (6) The a t t e n d a n c e by t h e employer o r s e n i o r management a t a 262 Dominion D i r e c t o r y , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (259). OC.'l Kootenay S a v i n g s C r e d i t U n i o n , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (252). 264 I m p e r i a l O p t i c a l , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 65/76; K i d d B r o s . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 8 ) ; Dominion D i r e c t o r y , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 5 9 ) . 2 6 5 L o n d o n Drugs, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 149/74. 266 I m p e r i a l O p t i c a l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 2 6 4 ) ; London Drugs, s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (265). - 100 -m e e t i n g o f the employees c a l l e d t o d i s c u s s the d e c e r t i f i -267 c a t i o n i s s u e ; (7) The a l t e r a t i o n o f the company's p a y r o l l by i n c l u d i n g employees o f the non-union company on t h e p a y r o l l o f t h e union company 268 to i n c r e a s e t h e base f o r a d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n ; (8) A p p a r e n t f a v o u r i t i s m shown by management to employees who were known t o be a n t i - u n i o n by d e a l i n g w i t h them o u t s i d e the terms o f the c o l l e c t i v e agreement; t h i s c o u l d i n c l u d e the payment o f h i g h e r wages, b e t t e r w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , o r p r o -* A + 269 mises o f advancement; (9) The c r e a t i o n o f impediments to f r u s t r a t e the union's a t t e m p t s t o communicate w i t h the e m p l o y e e s . 2 7 ^ As was the c a s e w i t h the O n t a r i o d e c i s i o n s , the Board w i l l n o t h o l d the employer r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the s t a t e m e n t s o f a management employee i f i t i s a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r t h a t he i s s p e a k i n g o f h i s own a c c o r d and t h a t i t 271 can i n no way be i n t e r p r e t e d as i n t e r f e r e n c e by the employer. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d i n c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i f the e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y i n d i -c a t e s t h a t the employees t r u l y w i s h to have the union d e c e r t i f i e d , then I b i d . 268 Western S t e a k , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 124/74. 269 I m p e r i a l O p t i c a l , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e (264). 270.,., I b i d. 271 R o t a r y P i e , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 143/74. - 101 -the Board w i l l do so. They have made i t c l e a r t h a t they w i l l n o t d i s m i s s the a p p l i c a t i o n p u r e l y t o p u n i s h t h e employer f o r h i s i n d i s c r e t i o n s where 272 t h e r e i s v i r t u a l l y no s u p p o r t l e f t among the membership. The Board has made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e uni o n does " not have a p r o -p e r t y r i g h t i n i t s c e r t i f i c a t i o n which e n s u r e s p e r p e t u a t i o n o f t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n even a f t e r the employees i t seeks t o r e p r e s e n t no l o n g e r 273 d e s i r e t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " . In the absence o f employer i n t e r f e r e n c e o r c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s o f the Code, t he d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i -c a t i o n w i l l be approved. Labour R e l a t i o n s Board o f Sask. v.. Her M a j e s t y the Queen on  the R e l a t i o n o f F. W. Woolworth Co. L t d . and Agnes S l a b i c k e t a l . L1956], S.C.R. 82; F i n e A r t s Dental L a b o r a t o r i e s L i m i t e d , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 20/77; Dominion D i r e c t o r y , s u p r a , a t f o o t n o t e (259). 273 I m p e r i a l O i l L t d . , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 45/77 a t p. 9. - 102 -CHAPTER IV O b s e r v a t i o n s and C o n c l u s i o n s A. G e n e r a l The major o b j e c t i v e i n t h i s a r e a o f employer f r e e speech i s t o s t r i k e a b a l a n c e between the r i g h t s o f t h e employer t o e x p r e s s h i s o p i n i o n and the g o a l o f p e r m i t t i n g the employees t o e x e r c i s e t h e i r r i g h t t o o r g a n -i z e w i t h o u t undue i n f l u e n c e from t h e i r e m p loyers. The f o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n s we have r e v i e w e d each t a k e a d i f f e r e n t a p p r oach t o the problem a l t h o u g h the Canadian, O n t a r i o and B r i t i s h Columbia codes seem t o be s e t t l i n g on f a i r l y common ground. The American approach t o t h i s problem i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t b ut t h a t i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h the g e n e r a l approach t o management - l a b o u r problems s o u t h o f the b o r d e r . There i s more o f a c o n f r o n t a t i o n s e t t i n g w i t h i n t h e American l e g i s l a t i o n and i t i s r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t i n t h e a r e a o f em-p l o y e r f r e e speech. Each s i d e i s f r e e t o e x p r e s s o p i n i o n s even i f they a r e e x a g g e r a t e d and then an open c o n t e s t o r f o r m a l b a t t l e , i . e . , a v o t e , i s h e l d to d e t e r m i n e t h e outcome. The American approach a l s o tends t o be more ad hoc i n terms o f j u d g i n g the a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f any b e h a v i o u r . In Canada t h e r e i s a tendency t o i n d i c a t e more e x p l i c i t l y which r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e t o be o b s e r v e d and then t o moderate t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t h r o u g h j u d i -c i o u s use o f r e m e d i a l powers. To attempt t o i m p o r t the e n t i r e American approach t o the problem o f employer f r e e s peech t o Canada would i n v o l v e n o t s i m p l y an amendment to one o r two s e c t i o n s o f the Code but a l s o a r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f the e n t i r e framework i n which i t must o p e r a t e . N o r t h o f the b o r d e r , t h e r e a r e a l s o more r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d on - 103 -t h e employer. T h i s u n d o u b t e d l y r e s u l t s from an e f f o r t t o d i s c o u r a g e the p a r t i e s from p r a c t i c i n g open a n t a g o n i s m toward each o t h e r d u r i n g o r g a n i -z a t i o n a l campaigns. The f e a r , o f c o u r s e , i s t h a t o v e r t h o s t i l i t i e s a t t h a t time would l e a d t o p o o r e r r e l a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t the c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n -i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p which might d e v e l o p . As we have mentioned above, the amendments t o the B r i t i s h Columbia Labour Code b r i n g t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n a l i t t l e c l o s e r t o the O n t a r i o and Canadian v i e w p o i n t s . I t i s now o u r i n t e n t i o n t o d e a l w i t h p o s s i b l e approaches t o the q u e s t i o n o f employer f r e e speech i n l i g h t o f the e x p e r i -ences i n each o f the j u r i s d i c t i o n s and t o make recommendations c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s . T h i s i s c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t as the B.C. Board s t i l l has n o t had the o c c a s i o n t o o u t l i n e t he l i m i t a t i o n s i t w i l l impose t h r o u g h i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( g ) . B. The Burden o f P r o o f As t h e Board w r e s t l e s w i t h the problem o f where t h e s u b s t a n t i v e law i n t h i s a r e a s h o u l d come to r e s t , t he p a r t i e s t h e m s e l v e s have t o deal w i t h the problem o f p r o v i n g the c o n t e n t s o f c o m p l a i n t s under the Code. In cases such as t h i s , where the s u b j e c t i s the mental a t t i t u d e o f i n d i v i d u a l s , the burden o f p r o o f i s a v e r y onerous one, i n t h e o r y , a t 274 l e a s t . I t has been s u g g e s t e d t h a t i t may be a d v i s a b l e f o r the l e g i s -l a t u r e (by f u r t h e r r e v i s i o n t o the Code s i m i l a r t o the r e q u i r e m e n t i n S e c t i o n 8(6) i n d i s m i s s a l c a s e s ) o r the Board ( t h r o u g h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) t o r e v e r s e the burden o f p r o o f t o r e q u i r e the employer t o prove t h a t h i s J o r d a n , D., "Employer Free Speech", an u n p u b l i s h e d paper p r e -p a r e d f o r P r o f e s s o r P. G a l l o f the F a c u l t y o f Law a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977. - 104 -s t a t e m e n t s d i d n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h the a b i l i t y o f the employees t o e x p r e s s t h e i r t r u e f e e l i n g s r a t h e r than t o r e q u i r e the employees o r the union t o prove t h a t i n t e r f e r e n c e d i d e x i s t . The s h i f t o f t h e burden may a c t as a f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n on o v e r a n x i o u s employers who might f e e l t h a t the new amendments have g i v e n them t o t a l freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n . While t h i s might reemphasize the f a c t t h a t employer i n t e r f e r e n c e i s n o t to be t r e a t e d f a v o u r a b l y by t h e B o a r d , t h e r e i s some q u e s t i o n as t o whether such an amendment would have any p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t i n terms o f e f f e c t i n g d e c i s i o n where v i o l a t i o n s have been c h a r g e d . In d i s c u s s i n g the e f f e c t o f S e c t i o n 8(6) i n d i s m i s s a l c a s e s , P r o -275 f e s s o r H i c k l i n g n o t e d : Even i n o t h e r c a s e s , s i n c e the t r u e r e a s o n s f o r an employer's a c t i o n s o f t e n l i e e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h i n h i s knowledge o r means o f knowledge, the Board may be e x p e c t e d t o c a l l upon him t o produce e v i d e n c e o f a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e from which h i s i n n o c e n c e o f a n t i -u nion m o t i v a t i o n can be i n f e r r e d , once the u n i o n has e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . In o t h e r j u r i s d i c -t i o n s , i t has n o t p r o v e d v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r a u n i o n , i n a d i s c i p l i n e o r d i s c h a r g e c a s e , t o persuade the boards t h a t when an employer's a c t i o n was taken a g a i n s t the background o f contemporaneous u n i o n a c t i v i t y , he ought t o produce a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a -t i o n o f i t . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s what d i f f e r -ence the r e v e r s a l o f the onus i n r e l a t i o n t o charges under S. 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) has had i n p r a c t i c e . I t seems l i k e l y t h a t i n most, i f n o t a l l , o f t h e c a s e s so f a r r e p o r t e d the d e c i s i o n would have been the same i n any e v e n t . I t i s e a s y t o e x a g g e r a t e the i m p o r t a n c e o f the change, though i n m a r g i n a l cases i t . w i l l make a d i f f e r e n c e . A t some s t a g e i n the f u t u r e the l e g i s l a t u r e may see f i t t o r e o r g a n i z e and r e c a s t S e c t i o n 3. I t seems s t r a n g e t h a t the l e g a l onus i n a d i s c h a r g e o r d i s c i p l i n e c a s e s h o u l d be on the H i c k l i n g , M. A., Developments i n Labour Law (1975), p u b l i s h e d by the C e n t r e f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B. C. a t pp. 34-35. - 105 -employer i f the charge i s framed i n terms o f S. 3 ( 2 ) ( d ) , but not when the s e l f same c o n d u c t i s t he b a s i s o f a l l e g e d c o n t r a v e n t i o n s o f S. 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) , (b) o r ( c ) . In t h i s w r i t e r ' s o p i n i o n , a f o r m a l r e v e r s a l o f the burden o f p r o o f would c e r t a i n l y be a l o g i c a l s t e p but the a c t u a l e f f e c t o f t h a t change might w e l l be o n l y c o s m e t i c . C. R e s t r i c t i n g the S t y l e o f Communication There i s a c o n c e r n about the " e m o t i o n a l " impact o f any communica-t i o n from the employer because t h i s i s the f a c t o r which o r d i n a r i l y i n t e r -f e r e s w i t h the e x e r c i s e o f a f r e e and e n l i g h t e n e d c h o i c e by t h e employee. A number o f r e s t r i c t i o n s d e s i g n e d to l e s s e n t h a t impact a r e i n p l a c e i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s and t h e r e a r e o t h e r s which the w r i t e r f e e l s s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d , a l t h o u g h t o o u r knowledge t h e y have n o t been employed e l s e w h e r e . ( i ) A l t e r n a t i v e Methods o f Communication (a) R e s t r i c t i o n s on the Use o f the " C a p t i v e A u d i e n c e " T e c h n i q u e A c a p t i v e a u d i e n c e as such i s n o r m a l l y a v e r y r e c e p t i v e one, f o r w hatever r e a s o n , be i t i n t e r e s t , f e a r o r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the two. The Board's c h o i c e s i n t h i s a r e a are e s s e n t i a l l y t o c o n t i n u e t o view t h i s t e c h n i q u e as e s s e n t i a l l y c o e r c i v e o r i n t i m i d a t i n g o r p e r m i t i t s use i n l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . F o r example, i f a company w i s h e d t o a d d r e s s i t s workers i t may, p r o v i d e d t h a t e q u a l time be g i v e n t o the u n i o n t o do so ( e i t h e r a t t h a t meeting o r a t a d i f f e r e n t t i m e ) . I t would seem t h a t the l a t t e r approach which i s o c c a s i o n a l l y used i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s would n o t f i t i n t o the o v e r a l l framework o f i n d u s -t r i a l r e l a t i o n s i n Canada. As o b s e r v e d above, the l e g i s l a t i o n , both - 106 -f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l , t e n d s to a v o i d c o n f r o n t a t i o n p o l i t i c s whenever p o s s i b l e and the use o f o r g a n i z e d c o n f r o n t a t i o n s seems t o be i n i m i c a l t o the p h i l o s o p h i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f the Labour Codes i n Canada. (b) C o n t r o l l e d Meetings A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y would be to r e s t r i c t an employer's communication about an o r g a n i z a t i o n campaign t o a c o n t r o l l e d m e e t i n g . I f the employer w i s h e d t o e x p r e s s h i s o p i n i o n s , he c o u l d r e q u e s t the Labour R e l a t i o n s Board to c a l l and s u p e r v i s e a m e e t i n g i n which both he and the u n i o n c o u l d a d d r e s s the employees c o n c e r n i n g the b e n e f i t s and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f u n i o n i -z a t i o n . H o p e f u l l y , i n such a s e t t i n g , t h e r e would be l e s s p o t e n t i a l f o r c o e r c i v e and i n t i m i d a t i n g b e h a v i o u r . There a r e a number o f o b v i o u s problems w i t h t h i s a p p roach. F i r s t o f a l l , i t would be a v e r y time-consuming chore and the Labour Board has enough to do. Even i f the budget c o u l d be f o u n d t o s u p p l y the manpower, t h i s forum c o u l d o f f e r the p a r t i e s a chance t o see "what they c o u l d g e t away w i t h " w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t the v e r y t h i n g t h a t i s t o be p r e v e n t e d i s a c t u a l l y e n c o u r a g e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , a l t h o u g h the Board would have a b e t t e r " f e e l " f o r the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f the communication, the a c t u a l d e c i s i o n as t o whether c e r t a i n s t a t e m e n t s a c t u a l l y c o n t r a v e n e d the Code would s t i l l be most d i f f i c u l t . ( c ) W r i t t e n S u b m i s s i o n s In o u r o p i n i o n , one o f the most r e a s o n a b l e and p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n s would be f o r the Board to r e s t r i c t p e r m i s s i b l e communication (under S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( g ) ) to w r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n s e i t h e r by way o f l e t t e r o r p u b l i c - 107 -n o t i c e . In t h a t way, much o f the e m o t i o n a l impact which accompanies t h e s e i n t e r p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s w i l l be d i f f u s e d . Employers who h o n e s t l y f e e l t h ey s h o u l d have the r i g h t t o communicate and t h a t they m e r e l y wish t o " g i v e the employees the f a c t s " s h o u l d n o t be a d v e r s e t o t h i s sugges-t i o n . In t h i s way, any r e a s o n a b l e f a c t s and o p i n i o n s c o u l d be e x p r e s s e d w i t h a c l e a r c o n s c i e n c e , the employee would be exposed t o "both s i d e s o f the s t o r y " and the conc e r n o f employers i n t h i s r e g a r d would be overcome. S i m i l a r l y , the uni o n ' s c o n c e r n about s u b t l e and o p p r e s s i v e i n f l u -ence would be p a r t i a l l y a l l e v i a t e d by the " c o l d " n a t u r e o f the communica-t i o n . I f any "heat" d i d i n f a c t e x i s t , i t would a l s o be o b v i o u s t o t h i r d p a r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g the Labour R e l a t i o n s Board. T h i s approach has the added advantage o f t h e r e n o t b e i n g any c o n f u s i o n o v e r the a c t u a l c o n t e n t s o f t h e o p i n i o n s which were e x p r e s s e d s h o u l d a v i o l a t i o n o f the Code be al l e g e d . (d) LRB Documents One o f the c r i t i c i s m s about e x i s t i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t i s o f t e n e x p r e s s e d by employers i s t h a t the employees have no s i m p l e mechanism f o r becoming aware o f t h e i r r i g h t s . To a g r e a t e x t e n t , t h i s i s a l e g i t i m a t e c o n c e r n . One s h o u l d n e v e r l o s e s i g h t o f the f a c t t h a t one o f the o b j e c -t i v e s o f l a b o u r l e g i s l a t i o n i s the p r o t e c t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l employee from n o t o n l y t he employer but a l s o , i n some c a s e s , the u n i o n . I t i s s u b m i t t e d t h a t one o f t h e c o r n e r s t o n e s upon which t h i s p r o t e c t i o n can be b u i l t i s the knowledge t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a re aware o f t h e i r r i g h t s . The Labour Boards i n Canada have b a s i c a l l y a c c e p t e d t he pre m i s e t h a t employers s h o u l d not be p a r t y t o t h i s d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n because o f t h e i r v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n the outcome o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n d r i v e . - 108 -The u n i o n s a l s o have v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s and i n some c a s e s , they may be c o n t r a r y t o the wishes o f i n d i v i d u a l employees. What i s r e q u i r e d i s a system which e n s u r e s the employees are aware n o t o n l y o f t h e i r b a s i c r i g h t s but a l s o t h e l i m i t s w i t h i n which they may e x e r c i s e t h e i r freedom o f c h o i c e . T h e r e f o r e , i t would be a d v i s a b l e f o r the Labour Board and/or the Department o f Labour t o d e v e l o p a w r i t t e n document which c l e a r l y and con-c i s e l y o u t l i n e s t h e l e g a l r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f v a r i o u s developments i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o r d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n d r i v e . When e i t h e r o f t h e s e i s underway, t h i s document c o u l d be p o s t e d i n p l a c e s where employees w i l l r e a d i l y see i t . The approach s h o u l d be e n t i r e l y f a c t u a l and the k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n which c o u l d be c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n would i n c l u d e : - the f a c t t h a t employees a r e not r e q u i r e d t o j o i n the u n i o n ; - the f a c t t h a t i f more than 55% o f the employees i n the a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t s i g n union c a r d s , then a vote w i l l n o t be h e l d and the union w i l l be a u t o m a t i c a l l y c e r t i f i e d ; - t h e f a c t t h a t i f the union does n o t o b t a i n the s i g n a t u r e o f a t l e a s t 45% o f the employees, then the c e r t i f i c a t i o n w i l l be u n s u c c e s s f u l ; - the f a c t t h a t i f the u n i o n s i g n s up between 45% and 55% o f the employees then a v o t e by s e c r e t b a l l o t w i l l be h e l d ; - the f a c t t h a t i f a v o t e i s h e l d , i t i s the m a j o r i t y o f t h o s e who v o t e t h a t d e t e r m i n e the r e s u l t ; and - the f a c t t h a t d e c e r t i f i c a t i o n cannot be a c c o m p l i s h e d u n t i l 10 months have e l a p s e d from the g r a n t i n g o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n . In t h i s way, t h e r e w i l l be c e r t a i n t y t h a t the employee has a c c e s s t o the i n f o r m a t i o n and j u s t as i m p o r t a n t , t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o r r e c t . - 109 -In t h i s way, a n o t h e r o f the employers' l e g i t i m a t e c o n c e r n s w i l l have been removed. ( i i ) The T i m i n g o f the Communication I f o p i n i o n s o f some n a t u r e a re i n d e e d now p e r m i s s a b l e under S e c t i o n 3 ( 2 ) ( g ) , t h e Board s h o u l d l i m i t t h e time p e r i o d i n which t h e s e o p i n i o n s can be g i v e n . R e s t r i c t i o n s which a r e used e l s e w h e r e i n c l u d e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f the f o l l o w i n g : - o n l y on f r e e t i m e , i . e . , n o t d u r i n g r e g u l a r working h o u r s ; - o n l y f o r a s p e c i f i c two o r t h r e e weeks d u r i n g t he o r g a n i z a -t i o n a l campaign; - n o t d u r i n g a s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d p r e c e d i n g a v o t e ( e . g . , two weeks, 72 hours o r 24 h o u r s ) . I t i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t the most p r a c t i c a l approach would be t o f o r b i d any communication w h a t s o e v e r w i t h i n one week o f the v o t e . There a r e two advantages t o t h i s a p p r o a c h ; f i r s t l y , t h e one-week p e r i o d i s l o n g enough t o a l l o w time f o r s u f f i c i e n t r e f l e c t i o n and s e c o n d l y , s h o u l d a minor i n a d v e r t e n t b r e a c h o c c u r ( s u c h as f l y e r s b e i n g c i r c u l a t e d f o r a s h o r t time a f t e r the r e s t r i c t e d p e r i o d b e g i n s which has happened c o n s t a n t l y i n O n t a r i o ) , the damage w i l l l i k e l y be minimal and w i l l n ot r e q u i r e the Board t o t a k e the r e m e d i a l s t e p s which may have been r e q u i r e d i f i n f o r m a t i o n had been communicated v e r y c l o s e i n time t o t h e a c t u a l v o t e . There i s , o f c o u r s e , t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r abuse, i n t h a t one o f the p a r t i e s may take advantage o f the o t h e r ' s r e q u i r e d s i l e n c e and g e t i n some l a s t minute p o l i t i c s . I f i t i s n o t s e r i o u s enough f o r the Board t o t a k e d r a s t i c measures, some mi n o r i n f l u e n c e may be e f f e c t e d . T h e r e f o r e , the Labour Board must r e a l i z e t h a t the s i l e n t p a r t y has no time o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o - no -c o u n t e r and t h e r e f o r e any v i o l a t i o n s must be met w i t h e f f e c t i v e r emedies. D. E x t e n s i o n s o f the P r i n c i p l e o f C o r r e c t i v e A c t i o n In the s e c t i o n on c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n , we d i s c u s s e d methods by which the Board has attempted t o make amends to u n i o n s which have been v i c t i m i z e d by an employer's u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e s . As we n o t e d , t h i s i s perhaps the a r e a i n which c r e a t i v i t y c o u l d be p u t t o use i n o r d e r t o e f f e c t i v e l y d i s -courage employer m i s b e h a v i o u r . However, the c r e a t i v i t y i s bounded by l e g a l i t y , i n the sense t h a t the Board cannot go beyond t h e i r powers, and e f f e c t i v e n e s s , i n t h a t the Board must choose remedies t h a t a r e f a i r and w i l l be c o m p i l e d w i t h . F o r example, some cases the Board has i m p l i e d t h a t i t would be p r e p a r e d t o 276 o r d e r employers t o open f o r b u s i n e s s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o s p e c u l a t e how f a r the B.C. Board would be w i l l i n g t o go i n p o l i c i n g t h i s t ype o f remedy f o r i t i s a t y p e o f " s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e " o r d e r which i s more d i f f i c u l t t o e f f e c t when an a s p e c t o f p e r s o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e i s r e q u i r e d . E. Use o f A u t o m a t i c C e r t i f i c a t i o n In the o p i n i o n o f many t r a d e e c o n o m i s t s , t h i s i s the o n l y r e a l l y 277 e f f e c t i v e remedy. D e s p i t e the o b s e r v a t i o n s o f the Board i n the Beechwood d e c i s i o n t h a t i t would be used more f r e q u e n t l y , t h e r e i s l i t t l e e v i d e n c e y e t t o s u p p o r t t h i s . One o f t h e o t h e r e f f e c t s o f t h i s remedy i s t h a t i n some c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t may r e q u i r e t h e s u b s e q u e n t use o f f u r t h e r r e m e d i a l powers. In B.C., 27fi Robinson L i t t l e , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 7 0 ) ; I n t e r m o u n t a i n Indus-t r i e s L i m i t e d , B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 179/74; B r i t i s h Columbia D i s t i l l e r y  Company, B.C.L.R.B. D e c i s i o n No. 24/75. 9 7 7 Supra a t f o o t n o t e (193). - I l l -the Board has the power t o h e l p the u n i o n attempt t o s o l i d i f y i t s s u p p o r t t h r o u g h the i m p o s i t i o n o f a f i r s t c o l l e c t i v e agreement under the Code ( S e c t i o n 70-72). I t i s used when an employer has r e f u s e d t o b a r g a i n w i t h a u n i o n i n the hope o f e n c o u r a g i n g d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the union and t h e r e b y f u r t h e r e r o d i n g i t s a l r e a d y t e n t a t i v e s u p p o r t . In c a s e s where a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s a p p r o p r i a t e due t o the a p p a r e n t i n a b i l i t y o f the employees t o e x p r e s s t h e i r t r u e o p i n i o n , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the employer would c o n t i n u e h i s r e s i s t a n c e by s u b s e q u e n t l y r e f u s i n g t o b a r g a i n i n good f a i t h . By i m p o s i n g a c o l l e c t i v e agreement upon the p a r t i e s , the Board would t h e r e b y g i v e the u n i o n some time t o g a i n some s u p p o r t and thus a b a s i s upon which to d e a l w i t h the r e c a l c i t r a n t employer. The i m p o s i t i o n o f a f i r s t agreement, however, i s an attempt t o put the p a r t i e s where they would have been i n the absence o f the employer's a c t i v i t y . In cases where 278 t h e u n i o n ' s s u p p o r t has been e f f e c t i v e l y d e s t r o y e d , the remedy o f a u t o -m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n would be o f no v a l u e and t h e r e must be r e c o u r s e t o o t h e r remedies such as the "make whole" d o c t r i n e . The "make whole" remedy i s an attempt t o r e s t o r e the s i t u a t i o n t o what i t was b e f o r e the u n f a i r l a b o u r p r a c t i c e o c c u r r e d . The d i s t i n c t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f the con-c e p t o f damages i n c o n t r a c t s and damages i n t o r t s . In the U.S., i t appears t h a t the N.L.R.B. ca n n o t f o r c e the p a r t i e s 279 t o adopt terms o f a c o n t r a c t . However, t h e y are i n a p o s i t i o n t o o r d e r K i d d B r o s . , s u p r a a t f o o t n o t e ( 6 8 ) . H. K. P o r t e r v. N.L.R.B. 397 U.S. 99 (1970). - 112 -compensation t o the employees by which method they can reduce the mone-t a r y " l o s s e s " o f the employees. The i m p o s i t i o n o f a c o l l e c t i v e agreement i s an extreme remedy inasmuch as i t f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t s the r i g h t s o f the p a r t i e s t o make t h e i r own agreements. However, t h e r e may r e a l i s t i c a l l y be few o t h e r o p t i o n s i f the i l l u s i o n o f e q u a l i t y o f t h e p a r t i e s i s t o become a r e a l i t y . I t s h o u l d be o b s e r v e d , however, t h a t i f t h e Board does i n c r e a s e i t s use o f the remedy o f a u t o m a t i c c e r t i f i c a t i o n , i t may a l s o have t o deal more f r e q u e n t l y w i t h the i s s u e o f whether t o employ t h e i r power t o impose f i r s t c o l l e c t i v e agreements. - 113 -BIBLIOGRAPHY A r t i c l e s and Books A d e l l , B. , "Employer Free Speech", (1965] (4) A l b e r t a Law Review 11. Browne and Sachs, "Caveat A g a i n s t B r i n k m a n s h i p " , (1970) 15, V i l l a n o v a  Law Review 588. C h r i s t i e , I. and Gorsky, M., U n f a i r Labour P r a c t i c e s : An E x p l a n a t o r y  Study o f the E f f i c a c y o f the Law o f U n f a i r Labour P r a c t i c e s i n  Canada, Task F o r c e on Labour R e l a t i o n s , Study No. 10, Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, Canada, 1970. F l e m i n g , John G., The Law o f T o r t s , The Law Book Company L i m i t e d , A u s t r a l i a , F o u r t h E d i t i o n . Getman, J . and G o l d b e r g , S., "The B e h a v i o u r a l Assumptions U n d e r l y i n g N.L.R.B. R e g u l a t i o n s o f Campaign M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s : An E m p i r i c a l O b s e r v a t i o n " , P a r t 2, S t a n f o r d Law Review, V o l . 28 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p. 263. J o r d a n , D., "Employer F r e e Speech", an u n p u b l i s h e d p a per p r e p a r e d f o r P r o f e s s o r P. G a l l o f the F a c u l t y o f Law a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977. Labour R e l a t i o n s Case Group, Labour R e l a t i o n s Law, I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s C e n t r e , Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , 2nd e d i t i o n , 1974. McDowell, D. and Huhn, K., N.L.R.B. Remedies f o r U n f a i r Labour P r a c t i c e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , Wharton S c h o o l , I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s U n i t R e p o r t No. 12. P e t t i b o n e , Jon E., "Sec. 10(5) B a r g a i n i n g O r d e r s i n G i s s e l Type C a s e s " , Labour Law J o u r n a l , V o l . 26, O c t o b e r 1976, p. 648. S l o a n e , A. and Whitney, F., Labour R e l a t i o n s , 3 r d e d i t i o n , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y . T a y l o r , B. J . and Whitney, F., Labour R e l a t i o n s Law, 2nd e d i t i o n , P r e n t i c e -H a l l , I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y . S t a t u t e s Canada Labour Code 1966-7 c. 62 (as amended). Canadian B i l l o f R i g h t s 1960 Chap. 44 as amended, 1970-71-72 c. 38. - 114 -C o n v e n t i o n (No. 87) C o n c e r n i n g Freedom o f A s s o c i a t i o n and P r o t e c t i o n o f  the R i g h t t o O r g a n i z e , a d o p t e d by the G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Labour O r g a n i z a t i o n a t i t s t h i r t y - f i r s t s e s s i o n , San F r a n c i s c o , 9 J u l y 1948. C r i m i n a l Code o f Canada R.S.C. 1970, c. c-34 as amended by the C r i m i n a l Law Amendment A c t , 1977, 1976-77 (Can) c. 53. Labour Code o f B r i t i s h Columbia S.B.C., 1973, Ch. 122 (as amended). Labo r Management R e l a t i o n s A c t , 1947 ( U . S . ) , A c t o f June 23, 1947, 61 S t a t . 136, as amended by A c t o f September 14, 1959, 73 S t a t . 519, ( T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t ) . Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t R.S.O. 1970, c. 232 (as amended). The Wagner A c t , A c t o f J u l y 5, 1935, 49 S t a t . 449. Cases A l c a n B u i l d i n g P r o d u c t s L t d . [1971] OLRB Rep. 806. Armbro M a t e r i a l s and C o n s t r u c t i o n L i m i t e d [1976] OLRB Rep. 743. A r t i s t i c Woodwork Co. L t d . [1973] OLRB Rep. 691. A u t o m a t i c E l e c t r i c Case (1961) 62 CLLC 1006. Bank o f Nova S c o t i a , S e l k i r k Branch [1978] 1 Canadian LRBR 544. 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 n t l e y S p o r t i n g Goods, 59 CLLC 18, 129 (1959). B e r n e l Foam P r o d u c t s Company, 146 NLRB 1277 (1964). B l u e F l a s h E x p r e s s , 109 NLRB 591 (1954). Bond S t o r e s I n c . , 116 NLRB 1929 (1956). B o n e v i t T e l l e r , 96 NLRB 608 (1951). Bourne v. N.L.R.B., 332 F2d 47 (1964). B r i t i s h Columbia D i s t i l l e r y Company, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 24/75. B r i t i s h Columbia Rai l w a y Company, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 20/76. B u c k l e y V a l l e y F o r e s t P r o d u c t s , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 17/76. Bulk L i f e Systems L i m i t e d , [1961] OLRB Rep. 43. - 115 -B u t l e r Wire P r o d u c t s , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 21/74. C a l c o r C o r p o r a t i o n , 106 NLRB 539 (1953). Cam C h a i n , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 138/74. Canadian Food and A l l i e d Workers L o c a l Union 633, [1974] 1 Canadian LRBR 96. Cannery, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 57/74. C C H . Canada L t d . [1977] OLRB Rep. 346. Chateau Gardens (London) Inc. , [1977] OLRB Rep. 12. Chic o p e e M a n u f a c t u r i n g , 107 NLRB 106 (1953). C i t y and C o u n t r y Radio [1975] (2) Canadian LRBR 1. CJRP Radio P r o v i n c i a l e L i m i t e e [1977] 1 Canadian LRBR 238. C l a r k B r o t h e r s , 70 NLRB 802 (1946). CLRA v. IBEW, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 75/76. C o n s o l i d a t e d B l e n d e r s I n c . , 118 NLRB 545 (1957). C o n s t e l l a t i o n H o t e l [1974] OLRB Rep. 799. Consumer P a l l e t , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 37/74. Cory Lumber, 102 NLRB 406 (1953). Dal Tex O p t i c a l , 137 NLRB 1782 (1962). D a n i e l C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v. N.L.R.B., (1965) 52 LC No. 16,664. De V i l b i s s (Canada) L i m i t e d , F i l e 1349-76-R (Dec. 7, 1976). Dominion D i r e c t o r y , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 65/75; [1975] 2 Canadian LRBR 345. D y l e x L i m i t e d [1977] 2 Canadian LRBR 171; F i l e No. 1500-76-R ( O n t . ) . J.A.K. E l e c t r i c a l C o n t r a c t o r s , [1977] OLRB Rep. 275. E x - C e l l o - 0 , 185 NLRB 107 (1970). E x c e l s i o r Underwear, (1966) C C H . NLRB p a r a . 20, 180. F a i r m o n t , BCLRB D e c i s i o n Nos. 56/75 and 64/76. F i n e A r t s Dental L a b o r a t o r i e s L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 20/77. - 116 -Food S t o r e Employees Union v. N.L.R.B., 476 F2d 546 (1973). Forano L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 2/74. Formosa S p r i n g Brewery, [1974] OLRB Rep. 604. Fotomat C o r p o r a t i o n , 202 NLRB 59 (1973). Gary A i r c r a f t C o r p o r a t i o n [1971] C.C.H. NLRB No. 23,004. General I n d u s t r i e s L t d . , [1976] OLRB Rep. 417. Genera l M i l l s Canada L t d . , F i l e No. 7411-74-R ( O n t . ) . G e n e r a l .Shoe, 77 NLRB 124 (1948). Genwood I n d u s t r i e s L t d . , [1976] OLRB Rep. 417. G e o r g i a K r a f t Company, 120 NLRB 806 (1958). G e o r g i a P a c i f i c C o r p o r a t i o n , 199 NLRB 240 (1972). G e s t e t n e r Canada L t d . [1971] OLRB Rep. 62. G i b r a l t a r M i n e s , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 16/75. G o l d Bond I n c . , 107 NLRB 1059 (1954). G r e a t A t l a n t i c and P a c i f i c Tea Company I n c . , 210 NLRB 593 (1974). Gresmac C o r p o r a t i o n , 205 NLRB 1108 (1973). Groendyke T r a n s p o r t Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 530 F2d, 137 (1976). Gummyed P r o d u c t s Co., 112 NLRB 1092 (1955). Guyan V a l l e y H o s p i t a l , 198 NLRB 107 (1972). H a r v e s v i l l e R o l l i n g M i l l , 204 NLRB No. 42 (1973). -Hayes S t e e l P r o d u c t s , [1964] OLRB Rep. 30. Hecket h o r n M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co., 208 NLRB No. 46 (1974). H i g g i n s I n c . , 106 NLRB 845 (1953). Hiram Walker and Sons, [1.974] 1 Canadian LRBR 517. Holl y w o o d Ceramics Company I n c . , 140 NLRB 221 (1962). H o s t e s s Food P r o d u c t s L t d . , [1975] OLRB Rep. 218. IBEW & Howell [1968] OLRB Rep. 695. - 117 -I d e a l B a k i n g Company, 142 NLRB 875 (1963). I m p e r i a l O i l L t d . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 45/77. I m p e r i a l O p t i c a l , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 65/76. I n t e r m o u n t a i n I n d u s t r i e s L i m i t e d , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 179/74. I n t e r n a t i o n Union o f D o l l and Toy Workers o f the U.S.A. and Canada L o c a l 905 L1977J OLRB Rep. 534. IUEW v. NLRB v. T i i d e e P r o d u c t s I n c . , ( T i i d e e #1) 426 F2d 1243 (1970). IUEW v. NLRB v. T i i d e e P r o d u c t s I n c . , ( T i i d e e #2) 440 F2d 298 (1970). IUEW v. NLRB v. T i i d e e P r o d u c t s I n c . , ( T i i d e e #3) 502 F2d 349 (1974). James v. Commonwealth o f A u s t r a l i a [1936] A.C. 578. Joy S i l k M i l l s I n c . , 85 NLRB 1239, (1949). K e l l w o o d Co. , 175 NLRB No. 79, (1969). Kernohan Lumber & Sash Co., [1977] OLRB Rep. 676. K i d d B r o s . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 53/76; [1976] 2 Canadian LRBR 304. K o l n a r L a b o r a t o r i e s I n c . , 159 NLRB 805 (1966); e n f o r c e d i n NLRB v. K o l n a r L a b o r a t o r i e s I n c . , 387 F2d 833 (1967). Komoka N u r s i n g Homes [1973] OLRB Rep. 28. Kootenay S a v i n g s C r e d i t U n i o n , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 54/77; [1978] 1 Canadian LRBR 40. K o r l i n [1972] OLRB Rep. 821. K r a l i n a t o r F i l t e r s L i m i t e d [1966] OLRB Rep. 312. Labour R e l a t i o n s Board o f Sask. v. Her M a j e s t y t he Queen on the R e l a t i o n  o f F. W. Woolworth Co. L t d . and Agnes S l a b i c k e t a l . , U 9 5 6 ] S.C.R. 82. L a f a y e t t e N a t i o n a l Bank o f B r o o k l y n , 77 NLRB 1210 (1948). Lake C i t y Foundry Company I n c . v. N.L.R.B., 64 LC No. 11,209 (1970). L a n g l e y Advance, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 139/74. L i n d e n Lumber v. N.L.R.B. 419 U.S. 301 (1974). L i n n v. U n i t e d P l a n t Guard Workers o f Am e r i c a , L o c a l 114, 383 U.S. 53 ( 1 9 6 6 T - 118 -L i t h o P r e s s , 211 NLRB 1014 (1974). L i v i n g s t o n S h i r t , 107 NLRB 400 (1953). London Drugs, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 149/74. L o r d B a l t i m o r e P r e s s , 142 NLRB 328 (1963). M a l l o r y C a p a c i t o r Company, 167 NLRB 647 (1967). Mallows P l a t i n g Works. I n c . , 193 NLRB 600 (1971). Maple L e a f Veneer [1961] OLRB Rep. 58. M a r t e l l & Sons Lumber L t d . M9721 OLRB Rep. 811. Mason Co., 142 NLRB 480 (1963). May Department S t o r e , 136 NLRB 797 (1962). McCoy B r o s . , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 9/77. Meat C u t t e r s L o c a l 576 v. N.L.R.B., 89 LRRM 3124 (1975). M e d i e v a l Inns, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 122/74. Mi n i t Car Wash, 1960 OLRB Rep. 361. Mink Dayton I n c . , 166 NLRB 604 (1967). M i t t e n I n d u s t r i e s [1975] OLRB Rep. 154. M u e l l e r B r a s s Company v. NLRB, 544 F2d 815 (1977). My!an S p a r t a , 78 NLRB 1144 (1948). N a t i o n a l Paper Goods, 46 CLLC p a r 16,429 a t 1129. New O n t a r i o Dynamics L t d . [1975] OLRB Rep. 845. N-J S p i v a k L i m i t e d [1977] OLRB Rep. 462. N.L.R.B. v. Armcor I n d u s t r i e s , 535 F2d 239 (1976). N.L.R.B. v. Autom a t i v e C o n t r o l s Corp. (Ac-10; 1969) 59 LC No. 13223. N.L.R.B. v. Federbush, 121 F2d 954 (C.A. 2d C i r ) (1941). N.L.R.B. v. G i s s e l P a c k i n g Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). N.L.R.B. v. Heck's I n c o r p o r a t e d , 433 F2d 541 (1970). N. L.R.B. v. Mt. Vernon Telephone Corp., 52 LC No. 16,777 (1965). - 119 -N.L.R.B. v. North American M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. 563 F2d 894 (1977). N.L.R.B. v. S p a r t o n M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co., 53 LC No. 11,017 (1966). N.L.R.B. v. Townhouse T.V. and A p p l i a n c e s I n c . , 531 F2d 826 (1976). • N.L.R.B. v. TRW Semi-Conductors I n c . , 56 LC No. 12,299 (1967). N.L.R.B. v. U n i t e d A i r c r a f t , 534 F2d 422 (1975). N.L.R.B. v. V i r g i n i a and E l e c t r i c Power Co., 314 U.S. 469 (194 1 ) . N.L.R.B. v. Wyman Gordon Company, 394 U.S. 759 (1969). North American Wood P r e s e r v i n g L t d . , BCLRB L e t t e r D e c i s i o n , May 25, 1978. Park Drug Company, 122 NLRB 878 (1959). Peel B l o c k Co. L t d . , (1963) 63 CLLC No. 16,277. P e e r l e s s o f America I n c . v. N.L.R.B. 484 F2d 1108 (1973). P e e r l e s s Plywood, 107 NLRB 427 (1953). P i g g o t t Motors 1961 L t d . , (1962) 63 CLLC p a r . 16264. P l a y t e x [1972] OLRB Rep. 1027. P l o c h m a n - H a r r i s o n , 140 NLRB 130 (1962). H. K. P o r t e r v. N.L.R.B., 397 U.S. 99 (1970). Quadra M a n u f a c t u r i n g , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 97/74. Reddi Gas, BCLRB D e c i s i o n s Nos. 33/74 and 112/74. R e g i o n a l M u n i c i p a l i t y o f H a l t o n [1975] OLRB Rep. 75. Research I n d u s t r i e s , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 17/74. Robin Hood M u l t i f o o d s L i m i t e d [1976] OLRB Rep. 250. Robinson L i t t l e , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 21/75. Rogers M a j e s t i c , DLS 7 - 1382. R o t a r y P i e , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 143/74. D. M. Rotary P r e s s , 208 NLRB 366 (1973). Rubbermaid Canada L t d . , [1967] OLRB Rep. 336. Sandman Inn, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 23/75. - 120 -Savage Shoe (1960), 60 CLLC 888. S e r v . - A i r I nc. v. NLRB, (CA-10) 57 LC No. 12,425 (1968). Seven Up Company L t d . , [1970] OLRB Rep. 198. Shopping K a r t s , 228 NLRB No. 190 (1977); 1977 C C H . P a r . 18047 a t p. 29974. S i l v e r K n i t H o s i e r y M i l l s I n c . , 99 NLRB 422 (1952). Smith Beverages L i m i t e d [1975] OLRB Rep. 956. Somisma I n c . , 133 NLRB 131 (196 1 ) . S o u t h w i r e Company,!59 NLRB 394 (1966). Speed Queen, 192 NLRB 998 (1971). S t a u f f e r - D o b b i e M a n u f a c t u r i n g (1959) C C H . Can. LLR 1955-59 T r a n s f e r B i n d e r p a r . 16147 a t p. 12,275. J . P. S t e v e n s v. N.L.R.B., 441 F2d 514 (1971). Stone & Webster E n g i n e e r i n g Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 536 F2d 461 (1976). S t o r k l i n e C o r p o r a t i o n , 142 NLRB 875 (1963). S t r u k n e s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, 165 NLRB 103 (1967). Sun Tube [1962] OLRB Rep. 28. S u r p r e n a n t M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co., 144 NLRB 507 (1963) e n f o r c e d i n Suprenant  M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F2d 756 (1965). S y r a c u s e C o l o r P r e s s , 103 NLRB 377 (1953) e n f o r c e d i n N.L.R.B. v. S y r a c u s e C o l o r P r e s s , 2nd C i r c . 209 F2d 596 ( 1 9 5 4 7 7 T ^ T a g g a r t S e r v i c e L t d . ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 64(3) CLLC 683. Tamblyn Drug M a r t , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 61/75. T e l e d y n e Dental P r o d u c t s , 210 NLRB 435 (1974). Tennessee S h e l l Co., 212 NLRB 193 (1974). T i i d e e P r o d u c t s I n c . , 194 NLRB 1234 (1972). T r a v e l a i n e T r a i l e r M a n u f a c t u r i n g L t d . , [1970] OLRB Rep. 829. Underwood M a n u f a c t u r i n g ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 52 CLLC P a r a . 17040. Union M a n u f a c t u r i n g Company, 123 NLRB 1633 (1959). - 121 -Utah Mines, BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 40/74. V a l l e y C i t y M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. [1971] OLRB Rep. 773. Vancouver I s l a n d P u b l i s h i n g Co., BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 49/75. Ve r e d and Harvey Company L i m i t e d [1971] OLRB Rep. 736. V i c e r o y C o n s t r u c t i o n Company [1978] 1 Canadian LRBR 22. Wackenhut o f Canada, 1975 OLRB Rep. 738. Wagner E n g i n e e r i n g , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 98/74. Water l o o County H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n [1965] OLRB Rep. 12. Welcome American F e r t i 1 i z e r Co., 179 NLRB 217 (1969). Western S t e a k , BCLRB D e c i s i o n No. 124/74. Westinghouse Canada L i m i t e d [1977] OLRB Rep. 641. Wilson-Munroe Company [1976] OLRB Rep. 385. Windsor Telephone Answering S e r v i c e [1973] OLRB Rep. 460. Winson C o n s t r u c t i o n L i m i t e d [1976] OLRB Rep. 714. W o l v e r i n e Tube ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 63 CLLC 1226. F. W. Woolworth Co., 101 NLRB 1457 (1952). XDG L i m i t e d [1975] OLRB Rep. 936. York Condominium C o r p o r a t i o n No. 77 [1977] OLRB Rep. 642. - 122 -APPENDIX I U n f a i r Labour P r a c t i c e P r o v i s i o n s A. B r i t i s h Columbia; Labour Code o f B r i t i s h Columbia B. O n t a r i o ; Labour R e l a t i o n s A c t o f O n t a r i o C. Canada; Canada Labour Code D. U n i t e d S t a t e s ; Labour Management R e l a t i o n A c t , 1947 ( T a f t - H a r t l e y A c t ) - 123 -Appendix I A. B r i t i s h Columbia U n f a i r l a b o u r 3. (1) No employer, and no per s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f p r a c t i c e s . o f an employer, s h a l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h the f o r m a t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r a d e - u n i o n o r c o n t r i b u t e f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r s u p p o r t t o i t ; b u t an employer may, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a n y t h i n g c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , p e r m i t an employee o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a t r a d e - u n i o n t o c o n f e r w i t h him d u r i n g w o r k i n g - h o u r s , o r t o a t t e n d t o the b u s i n e s s o f the t r a d e - u n i o n d u r i n g w o r k i n g - h o u r s , w i t h o u t d e d u c t i o n o f time so o c c u p i e d i n the c o m p u t a t i o n o f the time worked f o r t h e employer and w i t h o u t d e d u c t i o n o f wages f o r t h e time so o c c u p i e d . (2) No employer, and no p e r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f an employer, s h a l l (a) r e f u s e to employ o r t o c o n t i n u e t o employ any p e r s o n , o r d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t any p e r -son i n r e g a r d t o employment, o r any c o n d i t i o n o f employment, because t h e p e r s o n i s a member o r o f f i c e r o f a t r a d e - u n i o n ; o r (b) impose any c o n d i t i o n i n a c o n t r a c t o f employ-ment s e e k i n g t o r e s t r a i n an employee from e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t s u n t i l t h i s A c t ; o r (c) seek by i n t i m i d a t i o n , by d i s m i s s a l , by t h r e a t o f d i s m i s s a l , o r by any o t h e r k i n d o f t h r e a t , o r by t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a p e n a l t y , o r by a pr o m i s e , o r by a wage i n c r e a s e , o r by a l t e r -i n g any o t h e r terms o f employment, o r by any o t h e r means, t o compel o r t o i n d u c e an employee t o r e f r a i n from becoming, o r c o n t i n u -i n g t o be, a member o r o f f i c e r o r r e p r e s e n t a -t i v e o f a t r a d e - u n i o n ; o r (d) d i s c h a r g e , suspend, t r a n s f e r , l a y o f f , o r o t h e r w i s e d i s c i p l i n e an employee f o r t h e re a s o n t h a t t h e employee ( i ) i s , o r pr o p o s e s t o become, o r seeks t o i n d u c e any o t h e r p e r s o n t o be-come, a member o r o f f i c e r o f a t r a d e - u n i o n ; o r ( i i ) p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the p r o m o t i o n , f o r -m a t i o n , o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r a d e - u n i o n ; o r (e) use, o r a u t h o r i z e o r p e r m i t t h e use o f , a p r o -f e s s i o n a l s t r i k e b r e a k e r o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n - 124 -o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t r i k e b r e a k e r s ; o r ( f ) i n t e r f e r e w i t h l a w f u l c o n c e r t e d a c t i o n by employees f o r t h e purpose o f o b t a i n i n g c o l -l e c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , but, e x c e p t as e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d , n o t h i n g i n t h i s A c t s h a l l be i n t e r p r e t e d t o a f f e c t the r i g h t o f an employer to s u s p e n d , t r a n s f e r , l a y o f f , o r d i s c h a r g e an employee f o r p r o p e r c a u s e . 1973 (2nd S e s s . ) , c. 122, s. 3. C o e r c i o n and 5. No p e r s o n s h a l l use c o e r c i o n o r i n t i m i d a t i o n o f i n t i m i d a t i o n any k i n d t h a t c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y have t he e f f e c t o f compel-p r o h i b i t e d . l i n g o r i n d u c i n g any p e r s o n t o become o r r e f r a i n from becoming, o r t o c o n t i n u e o r t o ce a s e t o be, a member o f a t r a d e - u n i o n . 1973 (2nd S e s s . ) , c. 122, s. 5. B. O n t a r i o Employers, e t c . , n o t to i n t e r f e r e w i t h u n i o n s . 56. No empl p e r s o n a c t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r m a t i o n , s e l o r t he r e p r e s e c o n t r i b u t e f i n but n o t h i n g i n an employer o f as he does n o t promises o r un s. 56. UNFAIR PRACTICES o y e r o r employe r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n and no on b e h a l f o f an employer o r an employers' h a l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e e c t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r a d e union s t a t i o n o f employees by a t r a d e u n i o n o r a n c i a l o r o t h e r s u p p o r t t o a t r a d e u n i o n , t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be deemed t o d e p r i v e h i s freedom t o e x p r e s s h i s views so l o n g use c o e r c i o n , i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t s , due i n f l u e n c e . R.S.O. 1970, c. 232, Unions n o t to i n t e r f e r e wi t h employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n . 57. No t r a d e u n i o n and no per s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f a t r a d e union s h a l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h the f o r m a t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f an employe r s ' o r g a n i -z a t i o n o r c o n t r i b u t e f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r s u p p o r t t o an employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n . R.S.O. 1970, c. 232, s. 57. Employers n o t t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h employees' r i g h t s . 58. No employer, employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n o r p e r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f an employer o r an employers z a t i o n , o r g a n i -(a) s h a l l r e f u s e t o employ o r t o c o n t i n u e t o employ a p e r s o n , o r d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t a pe r s o n i n r e g a r d t o employment o r any term o r c o n d i t i o n o f employment because t h e - 125 -pe r s o n was o r i s a member o f a t r a d e union o r was o r i s e x e r c i s i n g any o t h e r r i g h t s under t h i s A c t ; (b) s h a l l impose any c o n d i t i o n i n a c o n t r a c t o f employment o r propose t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f any c o n d i t i o n i n a c o n t r a c t o f employment t h a t seeks t o r e s t r a i n an employee o r a per s o n s e e k i n g employment from becoming a member o f a t r a d e union o r e x e r c i s i n g any o t h e r r i g h t s under t h i s A c t ; o r (c) s h a l l seek by t h r e a t o f d i s m i s s a l , o r by any o t h e r k i n d o f t h r e a t , o r by the i m p o s i t i o n o f a p e c u n i a r y o r o t h e r p e n a l t y , o r by any o t h e r means t o compel an employee t o become o r r e f r a i n from becoming o r t o c o n t i n u e t o be o r t o cease t o be a member o r o f f i c e r o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a t r a d e union o r t o cease t o e x e r c i s e any r i g h t s under t h i s A c t . R.S.O. 1970, c. 232, s. 58. Employers n o t t o 59. (1) No employer, employ e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n o r p e r -i n t e r f e r e son a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f an employer o r an emp l o y e r s ' w i t h b a r - o r g a n i z a t i o n s h a l l , so l o n g as a t r a d e u n i o n c o n t i n u e s g a i n i n g t o be e n t i t l e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e employees i n a b a r g a i n -r i g h t s , i n g u n i t , b a r g a i n w i t h o r e n t e r i n t o a c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e -ment w i t h any p e r s o n o r a n o t h e r t r a d e u n i o n o r a c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s on b e h a l f o f o r p u r p o r t i n g , d e s i g n e d o r i n t e n d e d t o be b i n d i n g upon t he employees i n t h e b a r g a i n -i n g u n i t o r any o f them. Trad e unions n o t t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h b a r g a i n i n g r i g h t s . (2) No t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s o r person a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f a t r a d e union o r c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s s h a l l , so l o n g as a n o t h e r t r a d e u n i o n con-t i n u e s t o be e n t i t l e d to r e p r e s e n t t h e employees i n a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t , b a r g a i n w i t h o r e n t e r i n t o a c o l l e c t i v e agreement w i t h an employer o r an employers' o r g a n i z a -t i o n on b e h a l f o f o r p u r p o r t i n g , d e s i g n e d o r i n t e n d e d t o be b i n d i n g upon the employees i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t o r any o f them. R.S.O. 1970, c. 232, s. 59. I n t i m i d a t i o n 61. No p e r s o n , t r a d e u n i o n o r employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n and c o e r c i o n . s h a l l seek by i n t i m i d a t i o n o r c o e r c i o n t o compel any pe r s o n t o become o r r e f r a i n from becoming o r t o c o n t i n u e t o be o r t o c e a s e t o be a member o f a t r a d e union o r o f an employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n o r t o r e f r a i n f r o m e x e r c i s i n g any o t h e r r i g h t s under t h i s A c t o r from p e r f o r m i n g any o b l i g a t i o n s under t h i s A c t . R.S.O. 1970, c. 232, s. 61. - 126 -C. Canada UNFAIR PRACTICES Employer i n t e r f e r e n c e 184. (1) No employer and no p e r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f i n o f an employer s h a l l t r a d e u n i o n . (a) p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h the forma-t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r a d e union o r the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f employees by a t r a d e u n i o n ; o r (b) c o n t r i b u t e f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r s u p p o r t t o a t r a d e u n i o n . E x c e p t i o n . (2) An employer i s deemed n o t t o c o n t r a v e n e sub-s e c t i o n (1) by r e a s o n o n l y t h a t he (a) i n r e s p e c t o f a t r a d e u n i o n t h a t i s the b a r -g a i n i n g agent f o r a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t c o m p r i s e d o f o r i n c l u d i n g employees o f the employer, ( i ) p e r m i t s an employee o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e t r a d e union t o c o n f e r w i t h him d u r i n g w o r k i n g hours o r t o a t t e n d t o the b u s i n e s s o f t h e t r a d e u n i o n d u r i n g w o r k i n g hours w i t h o u t any d e d u c t i o n from wages o r any d e d u c t i o n o f time worked f o r the employer, ( i i ) p r o v i d e s f r e e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e s o f the t r a d e u n i o n f o r pur-poses o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e -ment and r e l a t e d m a t t e r s , o r ( i i i ) p e r m i t s t h e t r a d e union t o use h i s p r e -mises f o r t h e purposes o f the t r a d e u n i o n ; o r (b) c o n t r i b u t e s f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t t o any p e n s i o n , h e a l t h o r o t h e r w e l f a r e t r u s t f u n d the s o l e purpose o f which i s t o p r o v i d e p e n s i o n , h e a l t h o r o t h e r w e l f a r e r i g h t s o r b e n e f i t s t o employees. P r o h i b i t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o (3) No employer and no p e r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f employers an employer s h a l l (a) r e f u s e t o employ o r t o c o n t i n u e t o employ any p e r s o n o r o t h e r w i s e d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t any p e r s o n i n r e g a r d to employment o r any term o r - 127 -c o n d i t i o n o f employment, because t he per s o n ( i ) i s a member o f a t r a d e u n i o n , ( i i ) has been e x p e l l e d o r suspended from membership i n a t r a d e union f o r a reason o t h e r than a f a i l u r e t o pay t h e p e r i o d i c dues, assessments and i n i t i a t i o n f e e s u n i f o r m l y r e q u i r e d t o be p a i d by a l l members o f t h e t r a d e u n i o n as a c o n d i t i o n o f a c q u i r i n g o r r e t a i n i n g membership i n the t r a d e u n i o n , ( i i i ) has t e s t i f i e d o r o t h e r w i s e p a r t i c i p a t e d o r may t e s t i f y o r o t h e r w i s e p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p r o c e e d i n g under t h i s P a r t , ( i v ) has made o r i s about t o make a d i s c l o -s u r e t h a t he may be r e q u i r e d t o make i n a p r o c e e d i n g under t h i s P a r t , (v) has made an a p p l i c a t i o n o r f i l e d a com-p l a i n t under t h i s P a r t , o r ( v i ) has p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a s t r i k e t h a t i s n o t p r o h i b i t e d by t h i s P a r t o r e x e r c i s e d any r i g h t under t h i s P a r t ; impose any c o n d i t i o n i n a c o n t r a c t o f employ-ment t h a t r e s t r a i n s , o r has the e f f e c t o f r e s t r a i n i n g , an employee from e x e r c i s i n g any r i g h t c o n f e r r e d upon him by t h i s P a r t ; s uspend, d i s c h a r g e o r impose any f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r p e n a l t y on an employee, o r take any o t h e r d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n a g a i n s t an employee, by r e a s o n o f h i s r e f u s a l t o p e r f o r m a l l o r some o f the d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a n o t h e r employee who i s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a s t r i k e t h a t i s n o t p r o h i b i t e d by t h i s P a r t ; deny t o any employee any p e n s i o n r i g h t s o r b e n e f i t s t o which the employee would be e n t i t l e d b u t f o r ( i ) the c e s s a t i o n o f work by the employee as the r e s u l t o f a l o c k o u t o r s t r i k e t h a t i s not p r o h i b i t e d by t h i s P a r t , o r ( i i ) t h e d i s m i s s a l o f the employee c o n t r a r y t o t h i s P a r t ; seek, by i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t o f d i s m i s s a l o r any o t h e r k i n d o f t h r e a t , by the i m p o s i t i o n o f a p e c u n i a r y o r o t h e r p e n a l t y o r by any o t h e r means, to compel a p e r s o n t o r e f r a i n from becoming o r to cease t o be a member, o f f i c e r o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a t r a d e union o r t o r e f r a i n from - 128 -( i ) t e s t i f y i n g o r o t h e r w i s e p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a p r o c e e d i n g under t h i s P a r t ; ( i i ) making a d i s c l o s u r e t h a t he may be r e -q u i r e d t o make i n a p r o c e e d i n g under t h i s P a r t , o r ( i i i ) making an a p p l i c a t i o n o r f i l i n g a com-p l a i n t under t h i s P a r t ; ( f ) s uspend, d i s c h a r g e o r impose any f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r p e n a l t y on a per s o n employed by him, o r take any o t h e r d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n a g a i n s t such a p e r s o n , by r e a s o n o f t h a t p e r s o n hav-i n g r e f u s e d to p e r f o r m an a c t p r o h i b i t e d by t h i s P a r t ; o r (g) b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y f o r the purpose o f e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o l l e c t i v e agreement o r e n t e r , i n t o a c o l l e c t i v e agreement w i t h a t r a d e u n i o n i n r e s p e c t o f a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t , i f a n o t h e r t r a d e u n i o n i s the b a r g a i n i n g agent f o r t h a t b a r g a i n i n g u n i t . P r o h i b i t i o n s 185. No t r a d e union and no p e r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f r e l a t i n g to o f a t r a d e union s h a l l t r a d e u n i o n s . (a) seek to compel an employer to b a r g a i n c o l -l e c t i v e l y w i t h t h e t r a d e u n i o n i f the t r a d e union i s n o t the b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t f o r a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t t h a t i n c l u d e s employees o f th e employer; (b) b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y f o r t h e purpose o f e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o l l e c t i v e agreement o r e n t e r i n t o a c o l l e c t i v e agreement w i t h an employer i n r e s p e c t o f a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t , i f t h a t t r a d e union o r p e r s o n knows o r , i n the o p i n i o n o f t h e Board, ought t o know t h a t a n o t h e r t r a d e u n i o n i s the b a r g a i n i n g agent f o r t h a t b a r g a i n i n g u n i t ; (c) p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f an employers' o r g a n i -z a t i o n ; (d) e x c e p t w i t h t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e employer o f an employee, a t t e m p t , a t an employee's p l a c e o f employment d u r i n g t h e w o r k i n g hours o f the employee, t o persuade t h e employee t o become, t o r e f r a i n from becoming o r t o cease to be a member o f a t r a d e u n i o n ; - 129 -(e) r e q u i r e an employer t o t e r m i n a t e t he employ-ment o f an employee because he has been ex-p e l l e d o r suspended from membership i n the t r a d e union f o r a re a s o n o t h e r than a f a i l u r e t o pay t h e p e r i o d i c dues, assessments and i n i t i a t i o n f e e s u n i f o r m l y r e q u i r e d t o be p a i d by a l l members o f the t r a d e union as a c o n d i -t i o n o f a c q u i r i n g o r r e t a i n i n g membership i n t h e t r a d e u n i o n ; ( f ) e x p e l o r suspend an employee from membership i n t h e t r a d e u n i o n or.deny membership i n the t r a d e union t o an employee by a p p l y i n g t o him i n a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner the membership r u l e s o f t h e t r a d e u n i o n ; (g) t a k e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n a g a i n s t o r impose any form o f p e n a l t y on an employee by a p p l y -i n g t o him i n a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner the s t a n d a r d s o f d i s c i p l i n e o f the t r a d e u n i o n ; (h) e x p e l o r suspend an employee f r o m membership i n the t r a d e union o r t a k e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c -t i o n a g a i n s t o r impose any form o f p e n a l t y on an employee by r e a s o n o f h i s h a v i n g r e f u s e d to p e r f o r m an a c t t h a t i s c o n t r a r y t o t h i s P a r t ; o r ( i ) d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t a p e r s o n i n r e g a r d t o employment, a term o r c o n d i t i o n o f employment o r membership i n a t r a d e u n i o n , o r i n t i m i d a t e o r c o e r c e a p e r s o n o r impose a p e c u n i a r y o r o t h e r p e n a l t y on a p e r s o n , because he ( i ) has t e s t i f i e d o r o t h e r w i s e p a r t i c i p a t e d o r may t e s t i f y o r o t h e r w i s e p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p r o c e e d i n g under t h i s P a r t , ( i i ) has made o r i s about t o make a d i s c l o s u r e t h a t he may be r e q u i r e d t o make i n a p r o c e e d i n g .under t h i s P a r t , o r ( i i i ) has made an a p p l i c a t i o n o r f i l e d a com-p l a i n t under t h i s P a r t . G e n e r a l 186. No p e r s o n s h a l l seek by i n t i m i d a t i o n o r c o e r c i o n p r o h i b i t i o n . to compel a p e r s o n t o become o r r e f r a i n from becoming o r t o cease t o be a member o f a t r a d e u n i o n . C o m p l a i n t s 187. (1) S u b j e c t t o s u b s e c t i o n s (2) t o ( 5 ) , any to t he Board. p e r s o n o r o r g a n i z a t i o n may make a c o m p l a i n t i n w r i t i n g to t h e Board t h a t an employer, a p e r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f - 130 -o f an employer, a t r a d e u n i o n , a pe r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f a t r a d e union o r an employee has f a i l e d to comply w i t h s e c t i o n 148, 184, o r 185. Time f o r (2) S u b j e c t t o t h i s s e c t i o n , a c o m p l a i n t p u r s u -making a n t t o s u b s e c t i o n (1) s h a l l be made t o the Board n o t c o m p l a i n t . l a t e r than n i n e t y days from t he date on which t he com-p l a i n t knew, o r i n the o p i n i o n o f the Board ought t o have known, o f the a c t i o n o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e c o m p l a i n t . L i m i t a t i o n (3) S u b j e c t t o s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) , no c o m p l a i n t s h a l l on com- be made t o t h e Board under s u b s e c t i o n (1) on the ground p l a i n t s t h a t a t r a d e union o r any pe r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f a a g a i n s t t r a d e union has f a i l e d t o comply w i t h p a r a g r a p h 1 8 5 ( f ) t r a d e o r (g) u n l e s s u n i o n s . (a) t h e c o m p l a i n a n t has p r e s e n t e d a g r i e v a n c e o r appeal i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h any p r o c e d u r e ( i ) t h a t has been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e t r a d e u n i o n , and ( i i ) t o which t he c o m p l a i n a n t has been g i v e n ready a c c e s s ; (b) t h e t r a d e union ( i ) has d e a l t w i t h t he g r i e v a n c e o r appeal o f t h e c o m p l a i n a n t i n a manner u n s a t i s -f a c t o r y t o him, o r ( i i ) has n o t , w i t h i n s i x months from t he date on which the c o m p l a i n a n t f i r s t p r e s e n t e d h i s g r i e v a n c e o r appeal p u r s u a n t t o pa r a g r a p h ( a ) , d e a l t w i t h h i s g r i e v a n c e o r a p p e a l ; and ( c ) t he c o m p l a i n t i s made t o the Board n o t l a t e r than n i n e t y days from t he f i r s t day on which the c o m p l a i n a n t c o u l d , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p a r a g r a p h s (a) and ( b ) , make the c o m p l a i n t . D. U n i t e d S t a t e s UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. SEC. 8. (a) I t s h a l l be an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e f o r an employer — (1) t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h , r e s t r a i n , o r c o e r c e employees i n the e x e r -c i s e o f the r i g h t s g u a r a n t e e d i n s e c t i o n 7; - 131 -(2) t o dominate o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f any l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o r c o n t r i b u t e f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r s u p p o r t to i t : P r o v i d e d , T h a t s u b j e c t t o r u l e s and r e g u l a -t i o n s made and p u b l i s h e d by the Board p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 6, an employer s h a l l n o t be p r o h i b i t e d from p e r m i t t i n g employees t o c o n f e r w i t h him d u r i n g w o r k i n g hours w i t h o u t l o s s o f time o r pay; (3) by d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n r e g a r d t o h i r e o r t e n u r e o f employment o r any term o r c o n d i t i o n o f employment t o encourage o r d i s -c ourage membership i n any l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n : P r o v i d e d , T h a t n o t h i n g i n t h i s A c t , o r i n any o t h e r s t a t u t e o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , s h a l l p r e c l u d e an employer from making an agreement w i t h a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n ( n o t e s t a b l i s h e d , m a i n t a i n e d , o r a s s i s t e d by any a c t i o n d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 8 ( a ) o f t h i s A c t as an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e ) t o r e q u i r e as a c o n d i t i o n o f employ-ment membership t h e r e i n on o r a f t e r t h e t h i r t i e t h day f o l l o w -i n g the b e g i n n i n g o f such employment o r t h e e f f e c t i v e date o f such agreement, w h i c h e v e r i s the l a t e r , ( i ) i f such l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the employees as p r o -v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 9 ( a ) , i n the a p p r o p r i a t e c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n -i n g u n i t c o v e r e d by such agreement when made [and has a t the time the agreement was made o r w i t h i n t h e p r e c e d i n g t w e l v e months r e c e i v e d from t h e Board a n o t i c e o f c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 9 ( f ) , ( g ) , ( h ) ] , and ( i i ) u n l e s s f o l l o w i n g an e l e c t i o n h e l d as p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 9 ( e ) w i t h i n one y e a r p r e c e d i n g the e f f e c t i v e date o f such agreement, the Board s h a l l have c e r t i f i e d t h a t a t l e a s t a m a j o r i t y o f the employees e l i g i b l e t o v o t e i n such e l e c t i o n have v o t e d t o r e s c i n d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f such l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t o make such an agreement: P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t no employer s h a l l j u s t i f y any d i s c r i m -i n a t i o n a g a i n s t an employee f o r nonmembership i n a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n . ( A ) i f he has r e a s o n a b l e grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t such membership was n o t a v a i l a b l e t o the employee on the same terms and c o n d i t i o n s g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r members, o r (B) i f he has r e a s o n a b l e grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t membership was d e n i e d o r t e r m i n a t e d f o r r e a s o n s o t h e r than f a i l u r e o f the employee t o t e n d e r the p e r i o d i c dues and t h e i n i t i a t i o n f e e s u n i f o r m l y r e q u i r e d as a c o n d i t i o n o f a c q u i r i n g o r r e t a i n i n g membership; (4) t o d i s c h a r g e o r o t h e r w i s e d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t an employee because he has f i l e d c h arges o r g i v e n t e s t i m o n y under t h i s A c t ; (5) t o r e f u s e t o b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y w i t h t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f h i s employees, s u b j e c t t o the p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 9 ( a ) . (b) I t s h a l l be an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e f o r a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o r i t s agents --- 1 3 2 -t o r e s t r a i n o r c o e r c e (A) employees i n the e x e r c i s e o f the r i g h t s g u a r a n t e e d i n s e c t i o n 7: P r o v i d e d , T h a t t h i s p a r a g r a p h s h a l l n o t i m p a i r t h e r i g h t o f a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t o p r e s c r i b e i t s own r u l e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o r r e t e n t i o n o f membership t h e r e i n ; o r (B) an employer i n the s e l e c t i o n o f h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f o r the purposes o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g o r t h e a d j u s t m e n t o f g r i e v a n c e s ; to cause o r attempt t o cause an employer t o d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t an employee i n v i o l a t i o n o f s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 3 ) o r t o d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t an employee w i t h r e s p e c t t o whom member-s h i p i n such o r g a n i z a t i o n has been d e n i e d o r t e r m i n a t e d on some ground o t h e r than h i s f a i l u r e t o t e n d e r the p e r i o d i c dues and t he i n i t i a t i o n f e e s u n i f o r m l y r e q u i r e d as a c o n d i t i o n o f a c q u i r i n g o r r e t a i n i n g membership; to r e f u s e t o b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y w i t h an employer, p r o v i d e d i t i s the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f h i s employees s u b j e c t t o the p r o -v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 9 ( a ) ; ( i ) t o engage i n , o r t o i n d u c e o r encourage [ t h e employees o f any employer] any i n d i v i d u a l employed by any p e r s o n engaged i n  commerce o r i n an i n d u s t r y a f f e c t i n g commerce t o engage i n , a s t r i k e o r a [ c o n c e r t e d ] r e f u s a l i n the c o u r s e o f [ t h e i r ] h i s employment t o use, m a n u f a c t u r e , p r o c e s s , t r a n s p o r t , o r o t h e r -w i s e h a n d l e o r work on any goods, a r t i c l e s , m a t e r i a l s , o r commodities o r t o p e r f o r m any s e r v i c e s [ , ] ; o r ( i i ) t o t h r e a - t e n , c o e r c e , o r r e s t r a i n any p e r s o n engaged i n commerce o r i n an i n d u s t r y a f f e c t i n g commerce, where i n e i t h e r c a s e an o b j e c t t h e r e o f i s : (A) f o r c i n g o r r e q u i r i n g any employer o r s e l f - e m p l o y e d p e r s o n t o j o i n any l a b o r o r employer o r g a n i z a t i o n or. [any employer o r o t h e r p e r s o n t o cease u s i n g , s e l l i n g , h a n d l i n g , t r a n s p o r t i n g , o r o t h e r w i s e d e a l i n g i n the p r o d u c t s o f any o t h e r p r o d u c e r , p r o c e s s o r , o r m a n u f a c t u r e r , o r t o c e a s e d o i n g b u s i n e s s w i t h any o t h e r p e r s o n ] t o e n t e r i n t o any agreement  which i s p r o h i b i t e d by s e c t i o n 8 ( e ) ; (B) f o r c i n g o r r e q u i r i n g any p e r s o n t o cease u s i n g , s e l l i n g , h a n d l i n g , t r a n s p o r t i n g , o r o t h e r w i s e d e a l i n g i n the p r o d u c t s o f any o t h e r p r o d u c e r , p r o c e s s o r , o r m a n u f a c t o r e r , o r  to d o i n g b u s i n e s s w i t h any o t h e r p e r s o n , o r f o r c i n g o r r e q u i r -i n g any o t h e r employer t o r e c o g n i z e o r b a r g a i n w i t h a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n as the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f h i s employees u n l e s s such l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n has been c e r t i f i e d as the r e p r e s e n t a -t i v e o f such employees under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 9 [ ; ] : P r o v i d e d , T h a t n o t h i n g c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s c l a u s e (B) s h a l l be  c o n s t r u e d t o make u n l a w f u l , where n o t o t h e r w i s e u n l a w f u l , any p r i m a r y s t r i k e o r p r i m a r y p i c k e t i n g ; - 133 -(C) f o r c i n g o r r e q u i r i n g any employer t o r e c o g n i z e o r b a r g a i n w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n as t h e r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e o f h i s employees i f a n o t h e r l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n has been c e r t i f i e d as t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f such employees under the p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 9; (D) f o r c i n g o r r e q u i r i n g any employer t o a s s i g n p a r t i -c u l a r work to employees i n a p a r t i c u l a r l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o r i n a p a r t i c u l a r t r a d e , c r a f t , o r c l a s s r a t h e r than t o employees i n a n o t h e r l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o r i n a n o t h e r t r a d e , c r a f t , o r c l a s s , u n l e s s such employer i s f a i l i n g t o conform to an o r d e r o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f the Board d e t e r m i n i n g t h e b a r g a i n i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r employees p e r f o r m i n g such work: P r o v i d e d , That n o t h i n g c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n (b) s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d t o make u n l a w f u l a r e f u s a l by any pe r s o n t o e n t e r upon t he pr e m i s e s o f any employer ( o t h e r than h i s own e m p l o y e r ) , i f t h e employees o f such employer a r e engaged i n a s t r i k e r a t i f i e d o r ap p r o v e d by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f such employees whom such employer i s r e q u i r e d t o r e c o g n i z e under t h i s A c t [ ; ] : P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t f o r t h e purposes o f t h i s  p a r a g r a p h (4) o n l y , n o t h i n g c o n t a i n e d i n such p a r a g r a p h s h a l l  be c o n s t r u e d t o p r o h i b i t p u b l i c i t y , o t h e r than p i c k e t i n g , f o r  the purpose o f t r u t h f u l l y a d v i s i n g t h e p u b l i c , i n c l u d i n g con- sumers and members o f a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h a t a p r o d u c t o r  p r o d u c t s a r e pr o d u c e d by an employer w i t h whom the l a b o r  o r g a n i z a t i o n has a p r i m a r y d i s p u t e and a r e d i s t r i b u t e d by  a n o t h e r e mployer, as l o n g as such p u b l i c i t y does n o t have an  e f f e c t o f i n d u c i n g any i n d i v i d u a l employed by any per s o n o t h e r  than t h e p r i m a r y employer i n the c o u r s e o f h i s employment t o  r e f u s e t o p i c k up, d e l i v e r , o r t r a n s p o r t any goods, o r n o t t o  p e r f o r m any s e r v i c e s , a t the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f the employer  engaged i n such d i s t r i b u t i o n ; (5) to r e q u i r e o f employees c o v e r e d by an agreement a u t h o r i z e d under s u b s e c t i o n (a) (3) the payment, as a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e -dent t o becoming a member o f such o r g a n i z a t i o n , o f a f e e i n an amount which t he Board f i n d s e x c e s s i v e o r d i s c r i m i n a t o r y under a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s . In making such a f i n d i n g , t h e Board s h a l l c o n s i d e r , among o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s , t h e p r a c t i c e s and customs o f l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r y , and th e wages c u r r e n t l y p a i d t o t h e employees a f f e c t e d ; [and] (6) to cause o r attempt t o cause an employer t o pay o r d e l i v e r o r agree t o pay o r d e l i v e r any money o r o t h e r t h i n g o f v a l u e , i n the n a t u r e o f an e x a c t i o n , f o r s e r v i c e s which a r e n o t p e r -formed o r n o t t o be p e r f o r m e d [ . ] ; and (7) t o p i c k e t o r cause to be p i c k e t e d , o r t h r e a t e n t o p i c k e t o r  cause t o be p i c k e t e d , any employer where an o b j e c t t h e r e o f i s  f o r c i n g o r r e q u i r i n g an employer t o r e c o g n i z e o r b a r g a i n w i t h - 1 3 4 -a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n as the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f h i s employees,  o r f o r c i n g o r r e q u i r i n g t h e employees o f an employer to a c c e p t  o r s e l e c t such l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n as t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n - i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , u n l e s s such l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y  c e r t i f i e d as the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f such employees: (A) where the employer has l a w f u l l y r e c o g n i z e d i n a c c o r - dance w i t h t h i s A c t any o t h e r l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n and a ques- t i o n c o n c e r n i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n may n o t a p p r o p r i a t e l y be r a i s e d  under s e c t i o n 9 ( c ) o f t h i s A c t , (B) where w i t h i n the p r e c e d i n g t w e l v e months a v a l i d  e l e c t i o n under s e c t i o n 9 ( c ) o f t h i s A c t has been c o n d u c t e d , o r (C) where such p i c k e t i n g has been c o n d u c t e d w i t h o u t a  p e t i t i o n under s e c t i o n 9 ( c ) b e i n g f i l e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e  p e r i o d o f time n o t t o exc e e d t h i r t y days from t h e commence- ment o f such p i c k e t i n g : P r o v i d e d , T h a t when such a p e t i t i o n  has been f i l e d t h e Board s h a l l f o r t h w i t h , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o  the p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 9 ( c ) ( 1 ) o r t h e absence o f a showing  o f a s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t on the p a r t o f the l a b o r o r g a n i z a - t i o n , d i r e c t an e l e c t i o n i n such u n i t as the Board f i n d s t o  be a p p r o p r i a t e and s h a l l c e r t i f y t h e r e s u l t s t h e r e o f :  P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t n o t h i n g i n t h i s s u b p a r a g r a p h (C) s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d t o p r o h i b i t any p i c k e t i n g o r o t h e r p u b l i c i t y  f o r t h e purpose o f t r u t h f u l l y a d v i s i n g t h e p u b l i c ( i n c l u d i n g  consumers) t h a t an employer does n o t employ, members o f , or"  have a c o n t r a c t w i t h , a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , u n l e s s an e f f e c t  o f such p i c k e t i n g i s t o i n d u c e any i n d i v i d u a l employed by  any o t h e r p e r s o n i n the c o u r s e o f h i s employment, n o t t o p i c k  up, d e l i v e r o r t r a n s p o r t any goods o r n o t t o p e r f o r m any s e r v i c e s . N o t h i n g i n t h i s p a r a g r a p h (7) s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d t o p e r m i t  any a c t which would o t h e r w i s e be an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e  under t h i s s e c t i o n 8 ( b ) . (c) The e x p r e s s i n g o f any v i e w s , argument, o r o p i n i o n , o r the d i s s e m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f , whether i n w r i t t e n , p r i n t e d , g r a p h i c , o r v i s u a l form, s h a l l n o t c o n s t i t u t e o r be e v i d e n c e o f an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e under any o f the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s A c t , i f such e x p r e s s i o n c o n t a i n s no t h r e a t o f r e p r i s a l o r f o r c e o r promise o f b e n e f i t . (d) F o r the purposes o f t h i s s e c t i o n , t o b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y i s the performance o f the mutual o b l i g a t i o n o f the employer and the r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e o f t h e employees t o meet a t r e a s o n a b l e times and c o n f e r i n good f a i t h w i t h r e s p e c t t o wages, h o u r s , and o t h e r terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f employment, o r the n e g o t i a t i o n o f an agreement, o r any q u e s t i o n a r i s i n g t h e r e u n d e r , and the e x e c u t i o n o f a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t i n c o r p o r a -t i n g any agreement r e a c h e d i f r e q u e s t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y , b ut such - 135 -o b l i g a t i o n does n o t compel e i t h e r p a r t y t o agree t o a p r o p o s a l o r r e -q u i r e the making o f a c o n c e s s i o n : P r o v i d e d , T h a t where t h e r e i s i n e f f e c t a c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g c o n t r a c t c o v e r i n g employees i n an i n d u s t r y a f f e c t i n g commerce, the duty to b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y s h a l l a l s o mean t h a t no p a r t y t o such c o n t r a c t s h a l l t e r m i n a t e o r m o d i f y such con-t r a c t , u n l e s s the p a r t y d e s i r i n g such t e r m i n a t i o n o r m o d i f i c a t i o n --(1) s e r v e s a w r i t t e n n o t i c e upon the o t h e r p a r t y to t h e c o n t r a c t o f the p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s i x t y days p r i o r t o the e x p i r a t i o n d a t e t h e r e o f , o r i n the e v e n t such c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n s no e x p i r a t i o n d a t e , s i x t y days p r i o r t o the time i t i s p r o p o s e d t o make suc h t e r m i n a t i o n o r m o d i f i c a t i o n ; (2) o f f e r s t o meet and c o n f e r w i t h the o t h e r p a r t y f o r the purpose o f n e g o t i a t i n g a new c o n t r a c t o r a c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n i n g the p r o p o s e d modi f i c a t i ons; (3) n o t i f i e s the F e d e r a l M e d i a t o r and C o n c i l i a t i o n S e r v i c e w i t h i n t h i r t y days a f t e r such n o t i c e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a d i s p u t e , and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h e r e w i t h n o t i f i e s any S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r i a l agency e s t a b l i s h e d t o m e d i a t e and c o n c i l i a t e d i s p u t e s w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r y where the d i s p u t e o c c u r r e d , p r o v i d e d no agreement has been r e a c h e d by t h a t t i m e ; and (4) c o n t i n u e s i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t , w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t , a l l the terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f the e x i s t i n g c o n t r a c t f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x t y days a f t e r such n o t i c e i s g i v e n o r u n t i l t he e x p i r a t i o n date o f such c o n t r a c t , w h i c h e v e r o c c u r s l a t e r : The d u t i e s imposed upon e m p l o y e r s , employees, and l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s by p a r a g r a p h s ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) , and (4) s h a l l become i n a p p l i c a b l e upon an i n t e r v e n -i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f the B o a r d , under which the l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o r i n d i v i d u a l , which i s a p a r t y t o the c o n t r a c t , has been s u p e r s e d e d as o r c e a s e d t o be the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the employees s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o -v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 9 ( a ) , and the d u t i e s so imposed s h a l l n o t be con-s t r u e d as r e q u i r i n g e i t h e r p a r t y t o d i s c u s s o r a g r e e t o any m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the terms and c o n d i t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n a c o n t r a c t f o r a f i x e d p e r i o d , i f such m o d i f i c a t i o n i s t o become e f f e c t i v e b e f o r e such terms and c o n d i -t i o n s can be reopened under the p r o v i s i o n s o f the c o n t r a c t . Any employee who engages i n a s t r i k e w i t h i n the s i x t y - d a y p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n s h a l l l o s e h i s s t a t u s as an employee o f the employer engaged i n the p a r t i c u l a r l a b o r d i s p u t e , f o r t h e p u rposes o f s e c t i o n s 8, 9, and 10 o f t h i s A c t , as amended, but such l o s s o f s t a t u s f o r such employee s h a l l t e r m i n a t e i f and when he i s reemployed by such employer. (e) I t s h a l l be an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e f o r any l a b o r o r g a n i z a - t i o n and any employer to e n t e r i n t o any c o n t r a c t o r agreement, e x p r e s s  o r i m p l i e d , whereby such employer ceases o r r e f r a i n s o r agrees t o cease  o r r e f r a i n from h a n d l i n g , u s i n g , s e l l i n g , t r a n s p o r t i n g o r o t h e r w i s e  d e a l i n g i n any o f the p r o d u c t s o f any o t h e r e mployer, o r t o c e a s e d o i n g  b u s i n e s s w i t h any o t h e r p e r s o n , and any c o n t r a c t o r agreement e n t e r e d - 136 -i n t o h e r e t o f o r e o r h e r e a f t e r c o n t a i n i n g such an agreement s h a l l be t o  such e x t e n t u n e n f o r c e a b l e and v o i d : P r o v i d e d , T h a t n o t h i n g i n t h i s  s u b s e c t i o n (e) s h a l l a p p l y t o an agreement between a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n  and an employer i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y r e l a t i n g t o the c o n t r a c t - i n g o r s u b c o n t r a c t i n g o f work to be done a t the s i t e o f the c o n s t r u c t i o n , a l t e r a t i o n , p a i n t i n g , o r r e p a i r o f a b u i l d i n g , s t r u c t u r e , o r o t h e r work: P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t f o r the p u rposes o f t h i s s u b s e c t i o n ( e ) and  s e c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) the terms "any employer", "any p e r s o n engaged i n  commerce o r an i n d u s t r y a f f e c t i n g commerce" and "any p e r s o n " when used  i n r e l a t i o n t o the term "any o t h e r p r o d u c e r , p r o c e s s o r , o r m a n u f a c t u r e r " , "any o t h e r employer", o r "any o t h e r p e r s o n " s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e p e r s o n s  i n the r e l a t i o n o f a j o b b e r , m a n u f a c t u r e r , c o n t r a c t o r , o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r  w o r k i n g on the goods o r p r e m i s e s o f the j o b b e r o r m a n u f a c t u r e r o r p e r - f o r m i n g p a r t s o f an i n t e g r a t e d p r o c e s s o f p r o d u c t i o n i n the a p p a r e l  and c l o t h i n g i n d u s t r y : P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , t h a t n o t h i n g i n t h i s A c t s h a l l  p r o h i b i t the e n f o r c e m e n t o f any agreement which i s w i t h i n the f o r e g o i n g  e x c e p t i o n . ( f ) I t s h a l l n o t be an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e under s u b s e c t i o n s  (a) and (b) o f t h i s s e c t i o n f o r an employer engaged p r i m a r i l y i n the  b u i l d i n g a n d _ c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y _ t o make an agreement c o v e r i n g employ- ees engaged ( o r who upon t h e i r employment, w i l l be engaged) i n th"e ~ b u i l d i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y w i t h a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o f wFTich  b u i l d i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n employees a r e members ( n o t e s t a b l i s h e d , main- t a i n e d , o r a s s i s t e d by any a c t i o n d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 81_a] o f t h i s A c t  as an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e ) because (1) the m a j o r i t y s t a t u s o f such  l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n has n o t been e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f  s e c t i o n 9 o f t h i s A c t p r i o r t o the making o f such agreement, o r (2")~  such agreement r e q u i r e s as a c o n d i t i o n o f employment, membership, i n such  l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a f t e r the s e v e n t h day f o l l o w i n g the b e g i n n i n g o f such  employment o r the e f f e c t i v e date o f the agreement, w h i c h e v e r i s l a t e r , o r (3) such agreement r e q u i r e s the employer to n o t i f y such l a b o r o r g a n i - z a t i o n o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r employment w i t h such employer, o r g i v e s such  l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f e r q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s f o r  such employment, o r (4) such agreement s p e c i f i e s minimum t r a i n i n g o r  e x p e r i e n c e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r employment o r p r o v i d e s f o r p r i o r i t y i n  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r employment based upon l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e w i t h such  employer, i n the i n d u s t r y o r i n the p a r t i c u l a r g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a : P r o v i d e d , T h a t n o t h i n g i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n s h a l l s e t a s i d e the f i n a l , p r o - v i s o t o s e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) o f t h i s A c t : P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t any a g r e e -ment which would be i n v a l i d , but f o r c l a u s e (1) o f t h i s s u b s e c t i o n , s h a l l n o t be a b a r t o a p e t i t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 9 ( c ) o r 9 ( e ) . * * S e c t i o n 8 ( f ) i s i n s e r t e d i n the A c t by s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f S e c t i o n 705 o f P u b l i c Law 86-257. S e c t i o n 705(b) p r o v i d e s : N o t h i n g c o n t a i n e d i n the amendment made by s u b s e c t i o n (a) s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d as a u t h o r i z i n g the e x e c u t i o n o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f agreements r e q u i r i n g membership i n a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n as a c o n d i t i o n o f employment i n any S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r y i n which such e x e c u t i o n o r a p p l i c a t i o n i s p r o h i b i t e d by S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r i a l 1 aw. - 137 -APPENDIX II Remedial S e c t i o n s A. B r i t i s h Columbia B. O n t a r i o C. Canada D. U n i t e d S t a t e s - 138 -Appendix II A. B r i t i s h Columbia I n q u i r y i n t o 8. (1) Where t h e r e i s a c o m p l a i n t i n w r i t i n g t o u n f a i r l a b o u r the Board t h a t an employer, o r a t r a d e - u n i o n , o r any p r a c t i c e s . o t h e r p e r s o n i s co m m i t t i n g an a c t p r o h i b i t e d by s e c -t i o n 3, 4, 5, 6, o r 7, the Board s h a l l s e r v e a n o t i c e o f t he c o m p l a i n t on t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom the com-p l a i n t i s made and on any o t h e r p e r s o n a f f e c t e d t h e r e -by. (2) The Board may a p p o i n t an o f f i c e r o f the Department o f Labour t o i n q u i r e i n t o t he c o m p l a i n t and endeavour t o e f f e c t a s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e m a t t e r com-p l a i n e d o f , and the o f f i c e r s h a l l r e p o r t t h e r e s u l t s o f h i s i n q u i r y and endeavours t o t h e board. (3) Where no appointment i s made under s u b s e c -t i o n ( 2 ) , o r where the o f f i c e r i s u n a b l e t o e f f e c t a s e t t l e m e n t o f the m a t t e r c o m p l a i n e d o f , t h e Board may i n q u i r e i n t o t he c o m p l a i n t . (4) Where, on i n q u i r y , t he b o a r d i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t an employer, t r a d e - u n i o n , o r o t h e r p e r s o n i s d o i n g , o r has done, any o f the a c t s p r o h i b i t e d by s e c t i o n s 3, 4, 5, 6, o r 7, the Board (a) may make an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t he employer, t r a d e - u n i o n , o r o t h e r p e r s o n t o cease d o i n g t h e a c t ; (b) may, i n t h e same o r d e r o r i n a su b s e q u e n t o r d e r , d i r e c t any employer, t r a d e - u n i o n , o r o t h e r p e r s o n to r e c t i f y t h e a c t ; ( c ) may i n c l u d e a d i r e c t i o n t o r e i n s t a t e and pay to an employee a sum equ a l t o the wages l o s t by reason o f h i s d i s c h a r g e , s u s p e n s i o n , t r a n s f e r , o r l a y - o f f c o n t r a r y to c l a u s e (d) o f s u b s e c t i o n (2) o f s e c t i o n 3; (d) may, i n the same o r d e r , o r i n a subs e q u e n t o r d e r , d i r e c t t h e employer n o t t o i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e r a t e s o f wages, o r a l t e r any term o r c o n d i t i o n o f employment o f the em-p l o y e e s a f f e c t e d by the o r d e r f o r a p e r i o d n o t e x c e e d i n g t h i r t y days w i t h o u t the w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f the Board, and the Board may e x t e n d such an o r d e r f o r a f u r t h e r p e r i o d n o t e x c e e d i n g t h i r t y d a y s; and - 139 -(e) may, i f the employees a f f e c t e d by the o r d e r are s e e k i n g t r a d e - u n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , c e r -t i f y o r r e f u s e t o c e r t i f y the t r a d e - u n i o n , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t , by r e a s o n o f an a c t p r o h i b i t e d by s e c t i o n 3, 4, 5, 6, o r 7, the t r u e w i s h e s o f the employees cannot be a s -c e r t a i n e d ; but the Board may impose such c o n d i t i o n s as i t c o n s i d e r s n e c e s s a r y o r ad-v i s a b l e upon the t r a d e - u n i o n , and, i f t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y f u l f i l l e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the Board w i t h i n t w e l v e months from the date o f the c e r t i f i -c a t i o n , o r w i t h i n such l e s s e r p e r i o d o f time as the Board may o r d e r , the c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be deemed t o be c a n c e l l e d . (5) I f , i n the o p i n i o n o f t h e B o a r d , the com-p l a i n t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t , t h e Board may r e j e c t t he com-p l a i n t a t any time. (6) On an i n q u i r y by the Board i n t o a c o m p l a i n t under c l a u s e (d) o f s u b s e c t i o n (2) o f s e c t i o n 3, the burden o f p r o o f t h a t he d i d not c o n t r a v e n e c l a u s e (d) l i e s upon the employer. 1973 (2nd S e s s . ) , c. 122, s. 8; 1974, c. 87, s. 22; 1974, c. 107, s. 6; 1975, c. 33, s. 5. B. O n t a r i o C e r t i f i -c a t i o n where A c t c o n t r a v e n e d . 7a. Where an employer o r e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n con-t r a v e n e s h i s A c t so t h a t the t r u e w i s h e s o f the employ-ees o f the employer o r o f a member o f the e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be a s c e r t a i n e d , and, i n the o p i n i o n o f the B o a r d , a t r a d e u n i o n has membership s u p p o r t adequate f o r the purposes o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r -g a i n i n g i n a b a r g a i n i n g u n i t f o u n d by t h e Board pur-s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 6 t o be 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 , the Board may, on the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the t r a d e union c e r t i f y the t r a d e u n i o n as t h e b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t o f the employees i n the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t . ENFORCEMENT I n q u i r y 79. (1) The Board may a u t h o r i z e a l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s by o f f i c e r to i n q u i r e i n t o any c o m p l a i n t a l l e g i n g a con-l a b o u r t r a v e n t i o n o f t h i s A c t . r e l a t i o n s o f f i c e r . D u t i e s (2) The l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s o f f i c e r s h a l l f o r t h w i t h i n q u i r e i n t o t h e c o m p l a i n t and endeavour t o e f f e c t a s e t t l e m e n t o f the m a t t e r c o m p l a i n e d o f . - 140 -R e p o r t . (3) The l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s o f f i c e r s h a l l r e p o r t the r e s u l t s o f h i s i n q u i r y and endeavours t o the Board. Remedy f o r (4) Where a l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s o f f i c e r i s unable t o d i s c r i m i n a - e f f e c t a s e t t l e m e n t o f the m a t t e r c o m p l a i n e d o f o r t i o n . where the Board i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n c o n s i d e r s i t a d v i s -a b l e t o d i s p e n s e w i t h an i n q u i r y by a l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s o f f i c e r , t he Board may i n q u i r e i n t o the c o m p l a i n t o f a c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h i s A c t and where the Board i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t an employer, employ e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , p e r s o n o r employ-ee has a c t e d c o n t r a r y t o t h i s A c t i t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e what, i f a n y t h i n g , the employer, employ e r s ' o r g a n i z a -t i o n , t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , p e r s o n o r employee s h a l l do o r r e f r a i n from d o i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t h e r e t o and such d e t e r m i n a t i o n , w i t h o u t l i m i t i n g the g e n e r a l i t y o f the f o r e g o i n g may i n c l u d e , n o t w i t h s t a n d -i n g the p r o v i s i o n s o f any c o l l e c t i v e agreement, any one o r more o f , (a) an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g the employer, employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n , t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , employee o r o t h e r p e r s o n t o cease d o i n g t h e a c t o r a c t s c o m p l a i n e d o f ; (b) an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g the employer, employ e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , employee o r o t h e r p e r s o n t o r e c t i f y the a c t o r a c t s c o m p l a i n e d o f ; o r ( c ) an o r d e r t o r e i n s t a t e i n employment o r h i r e the p e r s o n o r employee c o n c e r n e d , w i t h o r w i t h o u t compensation, o r ' t o compensate i n l i e u o f h i r i n g o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t f o r l o s s o f e a r n i n g s o r o t h e r employment b e n e f i t s i n an amount t h a t may be a s s e s s e d by the Board a g a i n s t the employer, employ e r s ' o r g a n i z a -t i o n , t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , employee o r o t h e r p e r s o n j o i n t l y o r s e v e r a l l y . Burden o f p r o o f . (4a) On an i n q u i r y by the Board i n t o a c o m p l a i n t under s u b s e c t i o n 4 t h a t a p e r s o n has been r e f u s e d employment, d i s c h a r g e d , d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t , t h r e a t e n -ed, c o e r c e d , i n t i m i d a t e d o r o t h e r w i s e d e a l t w i t h con-t r a r y to t h i s A c t as t o h i s employment, o p p o r t u n i t y f o r employment o r c o n d i t i o n s o f employment, the burden o f p r o o f t h a t any employer o r e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n d i d n o t a c t c o n t r a r y t o t h i s A c t l i e s upon t h e employer o r employers' o r g a n i z a t i o n . 1975, c. 76, s. 2 1 ( 1 ) . - 141 -E n f o r c e m e n t o f d e t e r m i n a -t i o n . (5) Where the t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , employer, e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , p e r s o n o r employee, has f a i l e d t o comply w i t h any o f the terms o f the d e t e r m i n a t i o n , any t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , employer, e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , p e r s o n o r employee, a f f e c t e d by the d e t e r m i n a t i o n may, a f t e r the e x p i r a t i o n o f f o u r t e e n days from the d a t e o f the r e l e a s e o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o r the date p r o v i d e d i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r c o m p l i a n c e , w h i c h e v e r i s l a t e r , n o t i f y the Board i n w r i t i n g o f such f a i l u r e , and t h e r e -upon t h e Board s h a l l f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e R e g i s t r a r o f the Supreme C o u r t a c o p y . o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , e x c l u s i v e o f the r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , i f any, i n the p r e -s c r i b e d form, whereupon the d e t e r m i n a t i o n s h a l l be e n t e r e d i n t h e same way as a judgment o r o r d e r o f t h a t c o u r t and i s e n f o r c e a b l e as such. R.S.O. 1970, c. 232, s. 7 9 ( 5 ) . E f f e c t o f (6) Where the m a t t e r c o m p l a i n e d o f has been s e t t l e m e n t . s e t t l e d , whether t h r o u g h t h e endeavours o f the l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s o f f i c e r o r o t h e r w i s e , and the terms o f the s e t t l e m e n t have been put i n w r i t i n g and s i g n e d by the p a r t i e s o r t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , the s e t t l e m e n t i s b i n d i n g upon the p a r t i e s , t h e t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , employer, e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , p e r s o n o r employee who have a g r e e d t o the s e t t l e m e n t and s h a l l be c o m p l i e d w i t h a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t e r m s , and a c o m p l a i n t t h a t the t r a d e u n i o n , c o u n c i l o f t r a d e u n i o n s , employer, e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , p e r s o n o r employee who has a g r e e d t o the s e t t l e m e n t has n o t com-p i l e d w i t h the terms o f the s e t t l e m e n t s h a l l be deemed to be a c o m p l a i n t under s u b s e c t i o n 1. R.S.O. 1970, c. 232, s. 7 9 ( 6 ) ; 1975, c. 76, s. 2 1 ( 2 ) . Canada 189. Where, under s e c t i o n 188, the Board d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a p a r t y to a c o m p l a i n t has f a i l e d t o comply w i t h s e c t i o n 148, 184 o r 185, the Board may, by o r d e r , r e -q u i r e the p a r t y t o comply w i t h t h a t s e c t i o n and may, (a) i n r e s p e c t o f a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h p a r a -graph 1 4 8 ( b ) , by o r d e r , r e q u i r e an employer t o pay to any employee compensation n o t ex-c e e d i n g such sum a s , i n the o p i n i o n o f the B o a r d , i s e q u i v a l e n t t o the r e m u n e r a t i o n t h a t would, but f o r t h a t f a i l u r e , have been p a i d by the employer t o the employee; - 142 -(b) i n r e s p e c t o f a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h p a r a -graph 1 8 4 ( 3 ) ( a ) , ( c ) o r ( f ) , by o r d e r , r e q u i r e an employer t o ( i ) r e i n s t a t e any f o r m e r employee a f f e c t e d by t h a t f a i l u r e as an employee o f the employer, and ( i i ) pay to any employee o r f o r m e r employee a f f e c t e d by t h a t f a i l u r e compensation n o t e x c e e d i n g such sum a s , i n the o p i n i o n o f the B o a r d , i s e q u i v a l e n t t o the remun-e r a t i o n t h a t would, b u t f o r t h a t f a i l u r e , have been p a i d by t h e employer t o the employee; ( c ) i n r e s p e c t o f a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h p a r a -graph 1 8 4 ( 3 ) ( e ) , by o r d e r , r e q u i r e an employer t o r e s c i n d any d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n i n r e -s p e c t o f and pay compensation t o any employee a f f e c t e d by the f a i l u r e , n o t e x c e e d i n g such sum a s , i n the o p i n i o n o f t h e Bo a r d , i s e q u i -v a l e n t t o any p e c u n i a r y o r o t h e r p e n a l t y im-posed on the employee by t h e employer; (d) i n r e s p e c t o f a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h p a r a -graph 1 8 5 ( f ) o r ( h ) , by o r d e r , r e q u i r e a t r a d e union t o r e i n s t a t e o r admit an employee as a member o f t h e t r a d e u n i o n ; and (e) i n r e s p e c t o f a f a i l u r e to comply w i t h p a r a -graph 1 8 5 ( g ) , (h) o r ( i ) , by o r d e r , r e q u i r e a t r a d e union t o r e s c i n d any d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f and pay compensation t o any employee a f f e c t e d by the f a i l u r e , n o t e x c e e d i n g such sum a s , i n the o p i n i o n o f the Board, i s e q u i v a l e n t t o any p e c u n i a r y o r o t h e r p e n a l t y imposed on the employee by the t r a d e u n i o n . D. U n i t e d S t a t e s PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. SEC. 10. (a) The Board i s empowered, as h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , t o p r e v e n t any p e r s o n from e n g a g i n g i n any u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e ( l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 8) a f f e c t i n g commerce. T h i s power s h a l l n ot be a f f e c t e d by any o t h e r means o f a d j u s t m e n t o r p r e v e n t i o n t h a t has been o r may be e s t a b l i s h e d by agreement, law, o r o t h e r w i s e : P r o v i d e d , T h a t t h e Board i s empowered - 143 -by agreement w i t h any agency o f any S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r y t o cede t o such agency j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r any cases i n any i n d u s t r y ( o t h e r than m i n i n g , m a n u f a c t u r i n g , communications, and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n e x c e p t where predomin-a n t l y l o c a l i n c h a r a c t e r ) even though such cases may i n v o l v e l a b o r d i s p u t e s a f f e c t i n g commerce, u n l e s s the p r o v i s i o n o f the S t a t e o r T e r r i -t o r i a l s t a t u t e a p p l i c a b l e t o the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f such cases by such agency i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s A c t o r has r e c e i v e d a c o n s t r u c t i o n i n c o n s i s t e n t t h e r e w i t h . (b) Whenever i t i s c h a r g e d t h a t any p e r s o n has engaged i n o r i s e n g a g i n g i n any such u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e , the Board, o r any a g e n t o r agency d e s i g n a t e d by the Board f o r such p u r p o s e s , s h a l l have power t o i s s u e and cause t o be s e r v e d upon such p e r s o n a c o m p l a i n t s t a t i n g t h e charges i n t h a t r e s p e c t , and c o n t a i n i n g a n o t i c e o f h e a r i n g b e f o r e the Board o r a member t h e r e o f , o r b e f o r e a d e s i g n a t e d a g e n t o r agency, a t a p l a c e t h e r e i n f i x e d , n o t l e s s than f i v e days a f t e r t he s e r v i n g o f s a i d c o m p l a i n t : P r o v i d e d , T h a t no c o m p l a i n t s h a l l i s s u e based upon any u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e o c c u r r i n g more than s i x months p r i o r t o the f i l i n g o f t h e charge w i t h the Board and the s e r v i c e o f a copy t h e r e o f upon the p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom such charge i s made, u n l e s s t h e p e r s o n a g g r i e v e d t h e r e b y was p r e v e n t e d from f i l i n g such charge by r e a s o n o f s e r v i c e i n the armed f o r c e s , i n which e v e n t the s i x - m o n t h p e r i o d s h a l l be computed from the day o f h i s d i s c h a r g e . Any such c o m p l a i n t may be amended by the member, ag e n t , o r agency c o n d u c t i n g t h e h e a r i n g o r t h e Board i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n a t any time p r i o r t o the i s s u a n c e o f an o r d e r based t h e r e o n . The p e r s o n so c o m p l a i n e d o f s h a l l have the r i g h t to f i l e an answer t o the o r i g i n a l o r amended c o m p l a i n t and to appear i n p e r s o n o r o t h e r w i s e and g i v e t e s t i m o n y a t the p l a c e and time f i x e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t . In the d i s c r e -t i o n o f the member, agen t , o r agency c o n d u c t i n g the h e a r i n g o r the Board, any o t h e r p e r s o n may be a l l o w e d t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e s a i d p r o c e e d i n g and to p r e s e n t t e s t i m o n y . Any s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l , so f a r as p r a c t i c a b l e , be c o n d u c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s under the r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e f o r the d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , a d o p t e d by the. Supreme Co u r t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s p u r s u a n t t o the A c t o f June 19, 1934 ( U . S . C , t i t l e 28, s e c . 723-B, 723-C). ( c ) The t e s t i m o n y taken by such member, a g e n t , o r agency o r the Board s h a l l be r e d u c e d t o w r i t i n g and f i l e d w i t h the Board. T h e r e a f t e r , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t he Board upon n o t i c e may t a k e f u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y o r h e a r argument. I f upon the p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f the t e s t i m o n y taken the Board s h a l l be o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t any p e r s o n named i n the c o m p l a i n t has engaged i n o r i s e n g a g i n g i n any such u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e , then the Board s h a l l s t a t e i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and s h a l l i s s u e and cause t o be s e r v e d on such p e r s o n an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g such p e r s o n t o c e a s e and d e s i s t from such u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e , and to t a k e such a f f i r m a t i v e a c -t i o n i n c l u d i n g r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f employees w i t h o r w i t h o u t back pay, as w i l l e f f e c t u a t e the p o l i c i e s o f t h i s A c t : P r o v i d e d , T h a t where an o r d e r d i r e c t s r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f an employee, back pay may be r e q u i r e d o f t h e employer o r l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , as t h e c a s e may be, r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s u f f e r e d by him: And p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t i n d e t e r m i n -i n g whether a c o m p l a i n t s h a l l i s s u e a l l e g i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 8 ( a ) (1) o r s e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) , and i n d e c i d i n g such c a s e s , the same r e g u l a t i o n s - 144 -and r u l e s o f d e c i s i o n s h a l l a p p l y i r r e s p e c t i v e o f whether o r n o t the l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a f f e c t e d i s a f f i l i a t e d w i t h a . l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n n a t i o n a l o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s c o p e . Such o r d e r may f u r t h e r r e q u i r e such p e r s o n t o make r e p o r t s from time t o time showing the e x t e n t t o which i t has c o m p l i e d w i t h the o r d e r . I f upon the p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f the t e s t i -mony taken the Board s h a l l n o t be o f the o p i n i o n t h a t the p e r s o n named i n the c o m p l a i n t has engaged i n o r i s e n g a g i n g i n any such u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e , then the Board s h a l l s t a t e i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and s h a l l i s s u e an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g the s a i d c o m p l a i n t . No o r d e r o f the Board s h a l l r e q u i r e the r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f any i n d i v i d u a l as an employee who has been suspended o r d i s c h a r g e d , o r the payment to him o f any back pay, i f such i n d i v i d u a l was suspended o r d i s c h a r g e d f o r c a u s e . In c a s e the e v i -dence i s p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e a member o f the B o a r d , o r b e f o r e an examiner o r examiners t h e r e o f , such member, o r such examiner o r e x a m i n e r s , as t h e c a s e may be, s h a l l i s s u e and cause t o be s e r v e d on t h e p a r t i e s to the p r o c e e d i n g a p r o p o s e d r e p o r t , t o g e t h e r w i t h a recommended o r d e r , which s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h the B o a r d , and i f no e x c e p t i o n s a r e f i l e d w i t h i n twenty days a f t e r s e r v i c e t h e r e o f upon such p a r t i e s , o r w i t h i n such f u r -t h e r p e r i o d as the Board may a u t h o r i z e , such recommended o r d e r s h a l l become the o r d e r o f the Board and become e f f e c t i v e as t h e r e i n p r e s c r i b e d . (d) U n t i l the r e c o r d i n a case s h a l l have been f i l e d i n a c o u r t , as h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , the Board may a t any t i m e , upon r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e and i n such manner as i t s h a l l deem p r o p e r , m o d i f y o r s e t a s i d e , i n whole o r i n p a r t , any f i n d i n g o r o r d e r made o r i s s u e d by i t . (e) The Board s h a l l have power t o p e t i t i o n any c o u r t o f a p p e a l s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , o r i f a l l the c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s t o which a p p l i c a t i o n may be made a r e i n v a c a t i o n , any d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s , w i t h i n any c i r c u i t o r d i s t r i c t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h e r e i n the u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e i n q u e s t i o n o c c u r r e d o r w h e r e i n such p e r s o n r e s i d e s o r t r a n s -a c t s b u s i n e s s , f o r the e n f o r c e m e n t o f such o r d e r and f o r a p p r o p r i a t e temporary r e l i e f o r r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , and s h a l l f i l e i n the c o u r t the r e c o r d i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , as p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 2112 o f t i t l e 28, U n i t e d S t a t e s Code. Upon the f i l i n g o f such p e t i t i o n , t he c o u r t s h a l l cause n o t i c e t h e r e o f t o be s e r v e d upon such p e r s o n , and t h e r e u p o n s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the p r o c e e d i n g and o f t h e q u e s t i o n d e t e r m i n e d t h e r e i n , and s h a l l have power to g r a n t such temporary r e l i e f o r r e s t r a i n -i n g o r d e r as i t deems j u s t and p r o p e r , and t o make and e n t e r a d e c r e e e n f o r c i n g , m o d i f y i n g , and e n f o r c i n g as so m o d i f i e d , o r s e t t i n g a s i d e i n whole o r i n p a r t the o r d e r o f the Board. No o b j e c t i o n t h a t has n o t been urged b e f o r e the B o a r d , i t s member, a g e n t , o r agency, s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d by the c o u r t , u n l e s s t h e f a i l u r e o r n e g l e c t t o urge such ob-j e c t i o n s h a l l be e x c u s e d because o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The f i n d i n g s o f the Board w i t h r e s p e c t t o q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t i f s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on the r e c o r d c o n s i d e r e d as a whole s h a l l be con-c l u s i v e . I f e i t h e r p a r t y s h a l l a p p l y t o the c o u r t f o r l e a v e t o adduce a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e and s h a l l show to t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the c o u r t t h a t such a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l and t h a t t h e r e were r e a s o n a b l e grounds f o r the f a i l u r e t o adduce such e v i d e n c e i n the hearing b e f o r e the B o a r d , i t s member, a g e n t , o r agency, t h e c o u r t may o r d e r such a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e t o be taken b e f o r e the Board, i t s member, a g e n t , o r agency, and t o be made a p a r t o f the r e c o r d . The Board may m o d i f y i t s - 145 -f i n d i n g s as to the f a c t s , o r make new f i n d i n g s , by r e a s o n o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e so taken and f i l e d , and i t s h a l l f i l e such m o d i f i e d o r new f i n d i n g s , which f i n d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t t o q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t i f s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on the r e c o r d c o n s i d e r e d as a whole s h a l l be c o n c l u s i v e , and s h a l l f i l e i t s recommendations, i f any, f o r the modi-f i c a t i o n o r s e t t i n g a s i d e o f i t s o r i g i n a l o r d e r . Upon the f i l i n g o f the r e c o r d w i t h i t the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s h a l l be e x c l u s i v e and i t s judgment and d e c r e e s h a l l be f i n a l e x c e p t t h a t the same s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w by the a p p r o p r i a t e U n i t e d S t a t e s c o u r t o f a p p e a l s i f a p p l i c a t i o n was made to the d i s t r i c t c o u r t as h e r e i n a b o v e p r o v i d e d , and by the Supreme C o u r t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s upon w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n as p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 1254 o f t i t l e 28. ( f ) Any p e r s o n a g g r i e v e d by a f i n a l o r d e r o f the Board g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g i n whole o r i n p a r t the r e l i e f s o u g h t may o b t a i n a review o f such o r d e r i n any c i r c u i t c o u r t o f a p p e a l s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n the c i r c u i t w h e r e i n t h e u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e i n q u e s t i o n was a l l e g e d t o have been engaged i n o r w h e r e i n such p e r s o n r e s i d e s o r t r a n s a c t s b u s i n e s s , o r i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia, by f i l i n g i n such c o u r t a w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n p r a y i n g t h a t the o r d e r o f the Board be m o d i f i e d o r s e t a s i d e . A copy o f such p e t i t i o n s h a l l be f o r t h w i t h t r a n s m i t t e d by the c l e r k o f the c o u r t to the B o a r d , and t h e r e -upon the a g g i r e v e d p a r t y s h a l l f i l e i n the c o u r t the r e c o r d i n the p r o -c e e d i n g , c e r t i f i e d by the Board, as p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 2112 o f t i t l e 28, U n i t e d S t a t e s Code. Upon the f i l i n g o f such p e t i t i o n , the c o u r t s h a l l p r o c e e d i n the same manner as i n . t h e case o f an a p p l i c a t i o n by the Board under s u b s e c t i o n (e) o f t h i s s e c t i o n , and s h a l l have t h e same j u r i s -d i c t i o n t o g r a n t t o the Board s u c h temporary r e l i e f o r r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r as i t deems j u s t and p r o p e r , and i n l i k e manner t o make and e n t e r a d e c r e e e n f o r c i n g , m o d i f y i n g , and e n f o r c i n g as so m o d i f i e d , o r s e t t i n g a s i d e i n whole o r i n p a r t the o r d e r o f the Board; the f i n d i n g s o f the Board w i t h r e s p e c t to q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t i f s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on the r e c o r d c o n s i d e r e d as a whole s h a l l i n l i k e manner be con-c l u s i v e . (g) The commencement o f p r o c e e d i n g s under s u b s e c t i o n (e) o r ( f ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l n o t , u n l e s s s p e c i f i c a l l y o r d e r e d by the c o u r t , o p e r a t e as a s t a y o f the Board's o r d e r . (h) When g r a n t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e temporary r e l i e f o r a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , o r making and e n t e r i n g a d e c r e e e n f o r c i n g , m o d i f y i n g , and e n f o r c -i n g as so m o d i f i e d , o r s e t t i n g a s i d e i n whole o r i n p a r t an o r d e r o f the Board, as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f c o u r t s s i t -t i n g i n e q u i t y s h a l l n o t be l i m i t e d by the A c t e n t i t l e d "An A c t t o amend the J u d i c i a l Code and t o d e f i n e and l i m i t the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f c o u r t s s i t t i n g i n e q u i t y , and f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , " approved March 23, 1932 ( U . S . C , Supp. V I I , t i t l e 29, s e e s . 101-115). ( i ) P e t i t i o n s f i l e d under t h i s A c t s h a l l be heard e x p e d i t i o u s l y , and i f p o s s i b l e w i t h i n t e n days a f t e r they have been d o c k e t e d . ( j ) The B o a r d s h a l l have power, upon i s s u a n c e o f a c o m p l a i n t as p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (b) c h a r g i n g t h a t any p e r s o n has engaged i n o r i s e n g a g i n g i n an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e , t o p e t i t i o n any d i s t r i c t c o u r t - 146 -o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s ( i n c l u d i n g t he D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r the D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a ) , w i t h i n any d i s t r i c t w h e r e i n the u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e i n q u e s t i o n i s a l l e g e d t o have o c c u r r e d o r w h e r e i n such p e r s o n r e s i d e s o r t r a n s a c t s b u s i n e s s , f o r a p p r o p r i a t e temporary r e l i e f o r r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r . Upon the f i l i n g o f any such p e t i t i o n t he c o u r t s h a l l cause n o t i c e t h e r e o f t o be s e r v e d upon such p e r s o n , and thereupon s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n to g r a n t t o the Board such temporary r e l i e f o r r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r as i t deems j u s t and p r o p e r . (k) Whenever i t i s c h a r g e d t h a t any p e r s o n has engaged i n an un-f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e w i t h i n the meaning o f p a r a g r a p h ( 4 ) ( D ) o f s e c t i o n 8 ( b ) , the Board i s empowered and d i r e c t e d t o h e a r and d e t e r m i n e the d i s -pute o u t o f which such u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e s h a l l have a r i s e n , u n l e s s , w i t h i n t e n days a f t e r n o t i c e t h a t such charge has been f i l e d , t h e p a r t i e s to such d i s p u t e s u b m i t t o the Board s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e t h a t they have a d j u s t e d , o r a g r e e d upon methods f o r the v o l u n t a r y a d j u s t m e n t o f the d i s p u t e . Upon co m p l i a n c e by the p a r t i e s t o the d i s p u t e w i t h the d e c i s i o n o f the Board o r upon such v o l u n t a r y a d j u s t m e n t o f the d i s p u t e , such charge s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d . (1) Whenever i t i s c h a r g e d t h a t any p e r s o n has engaged i n an un-f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e w i t h i n the meaning o f p a r a g r a p h ( 4 ) ( A ) , ( B ) , o r (C) o f s e c t i o n 8 ( b ) , o r s e c t i o n 8(e) o r s e c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 7 ) , t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f such charge s h a l l be made f o r t h w i t h and g i v e n p r i o r i t y o v e r a l l o t h e r cases e x c e p t c a s e s o f l i k e c h a r a c t e r i n t h e o f f i c e where i t i s f i l e d o r t o which i t i s r e f e r r e d . I f , a f t e r such i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e o f f i c e r o r r e g i o n a l a t t o r n e y to whom the m a t t e r may be r e f e r r e d has r e a s o n a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e s u c h charge i s t r u e and t h a t the m a t t e r may be r e f e r r e d has r e a s o n a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e such charge i s t r u e and t h a t a c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d i s s u e , he s h a l l , on b e h a l f o f t h e B o a r d , p e t i t i o n any d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s ( i n c l u d i n g t he D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r the D i s t r i c t o f Columbia) w i t h i n any d i s t r i c t where the u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e i n q u e s t i o n has o c c u r r e d , i s a l l e g e d t o have o c c u r r e d , o r w h e r e i n such p e r s o n r e s i d e s o r t r a n s a c t s b u s i n e s s , f o r a p p r o p r i a t e i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f p e n d i n g the f i n a l a d j u d i c a t i o n o f the Board w i t h r e s p e c t to such m a t t e r . Upon the f i l i n g o f any such p e t i t i o n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t such i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f o r temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r as i t deems j u s t and p r o p e r , n o t -w i t h s t a n d i n g any o t h e r p r o v i s i o n o f law: P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t no temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r s h a l l be i s s u e d w i t h o u t n o t i c e u n l e s s a p e t i t i o n a l l e g e s t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l and i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y t o the c h a r g i n g p a r t y w i l l be u n a v o i d a b l e and such temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e f o r no l o n g e r than f i v e days and w i l l become v o i d a t t h e e x p i r a -t i o n o f such p e r i o d [ . ] : P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t such o f f i c e r o r r e g i o n a l  a t t o r n e y s h a l l n o t a p p l y f o r any r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r under s e c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 7 )  i f a.charge a g a i n s t the employer under s e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) has been f i l e d and  a f t e r the p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he has r e a s o n a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e  t h a t such charge i s t r u e and t h a t a c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d i s s u e . Upon f i l i n g o f any such p e t i t i o n t he c o u r t s s h a l l cause n o t i c e t h e r e o f t o be s e r v e d upon any p e r s o n i n v o l v e d i n the charge and such p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g the c h a r g i n g p a r t y , s h a l l be g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o appear by c o u n s e l and p r e s e n t any r e l e v a n t t e s t i m o n y : P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t f o r the purposes o f t h i s s u b s e c t i o n d i s t r i c t c o u r t s s h a l l be deemed t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n - 147 -o f a l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n (1) i n the d i s t r i c t i n which such o r g a n i z a t i o n m a i n t a i n s i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e , o r (2) i n any d i s t r i c t i n which i t s d u l y a u t h o r i z e d o f f i c e r s o r agents a r e engaged i n p r o m o t i n g o r p r o t e c t i n g the i n t e r e s t s o f employee members. The s e r v i c e o f l e g a l p r o c e s s upon such o f f i c e r o r agent s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e s e r v i c e upon the l a b o r o r g a n i -z a t i o n and make such o r g a n i z a t i o n a p a r t y t o the s u i t . In s i t u a t i o n s where such r e l i e f i s a p p r o p r i a t e the p r o c e d u r e s p e c i f i e d h e r e i n s h a l l a p p l y t o c h a t g e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o s e c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( D ) . (m) Whenever i t i s c h a r g e d t h a t any p e r s o n has e n g aged^in an  u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e w i t h i n the meaning o f s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) ( 3 ) o r ~ T b ) ( 2 ) o f s e c t i o n 8, such charge s h a l l be g i v e n p r i o r i t y o v e r a l l o t h e r cases  e x c e p t c a s e s o f l i k e c h a r a c t e r i n the o f f i c e where i t i s f i l e d o r ^ t o  which i t i s r e f e r r e d and cases g i v e n p r i o r i t y under s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) . - 148 -APPENDIX I I I 1977 Amendments to S e c t i o n 3 o f Labour Code o f B.C. MINISTER OF LABOUR B I L L 89 Labour Code o f B r i t i s h Columbia Amendment A c t , 1977 S e c t i o n 3(2) i s r e p e a l e d and the f o l l o w i n g s u b s t i t u t e d ; (2) No employer, and no p e r s o n a c t i n g on b e h a l f o f an employer, s h a l l (a) d i s c h a r g e , suspend, t r a n s f e r , l a y o f f , o r o t h e r w i s e d i s c i p l i n e an employee, o r r e f u s e to employ o r c o n t i n u e to employ a p e r s o n , o r d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t a p e r s o n i n r e g a r d t o employment, o r a c o n d i t i o n o f employment, f o r the r e a s o n t h a t the p e r s o n ( i ) i s o r p r o p o s e s to become, o r seeks to i n d u c e any o t h e r p e r s o n t o become, a member o r o f f i c e r o f a t r a d e - u n i o n , o r ( i i ) p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the p r o m o t i o n , f o r m a t i o n , o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r a d e - u n i o n , o r (b) impose a c o n d i t i o n i n a c o n t r a c t o f employment s e e k i n g t o r e s t r a i n an employee from e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t s under t h i s A c t , o r ( c ) seek by i n t i m i d a t i o n , by d i s m i s s a l , by t h r e a t o f d i s -m i s s a l , o r by any o t h e r k i n d o f t h r e a t , o r by the i m p o s i t i o n o f a p e n a l t y , o r by a p r o m i s e , o r by a wage i n c r e a s e , o r by a l t e r i n g any o t h e r terms o f employment, to compel o r t o i n d u c e an employee to r e f r a i n from becoming, o r c o n t i n u i n g t o be, a member o r o f f i c e r o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a t r a d e - u n i o n , o r (d) use, o r a u t h o r i z e o r p e r m i t t h e use o f , a p r o f e s s i o n a l s t r i k e b r e a k e r o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t r i k e 149 -b r e a k e r s , o r (e) r e f u s e t o agre w i t h a t r a d e - u n i o n , c e r t i f i e d as the b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t f o r h i s employees under t h i s A c t who have been engaged i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g w i t h a view t o c o n c l u d i n g t h e i r f i r s t c o l l e c t i v e agreement, t h a t a l l employees i n the u n i t , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e who may n o t be members o f the t r a d e - u n i o n , but e x c l u d i n g t h o s e exempted under s e c t i o n 11, w i l l pay union dues from time t o time t o the t r a d e - u n i o n , but, e x c e p t as e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d , n o t h i n g i n t h i s A c t s h a l l be so i n t e r p r e t e d as to l i m i t o r o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t the r i g h t o f the employer ( f ) to suspend, t r a n s f e r , l a y o f f , o r d i s c h a r g e an employee f o r p r o p e r c a u s e , o r (g) t o communicate to an employee a s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t o r o p i n i o n r e a s o n a b l y h e l d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the employer's b u s i n e s s , o r (h) t o make any change i n the o p e r a t i o n o f the employer's b u s i n e s s r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y f o r the p r o p e r c o n d u c t o f t h a t b u s i n e s s . 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077635/manifest

Comment

Related Items