Cite as: United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1252 v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada, 1988 NSSC 37 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF TRIAL DIVISION B E T W E E N : HEARD i n Chambers a t H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a b e f o r e t h e Honourable M r . J u s t i c e Nathanson, T r i a l D i v i s i o n , on May 31, 1988. DECISION May 31, 1988 COUNSEL N.B. MacDonald, E s q . ) Susan D. Coen, Esq. T e r r y Lou i se Roane, J.J. Ashley , Esq. J . Plowman, Esq. S.H. No. 6 3 2 2 8 NOVA SCOTIA APPLICANTS - and -RESPONDENTS ( o r a l ) - f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t s ) E s q . - f o r t h e r e spof iden t , N a t . Auto . , A e r o . and Agr. Imp. Workers Union of Can. (CAW-Can. ) - f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t , Labour R e l a t i o n s Bd. (Nova S c o t i a ) - f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t , A. C .A . Coop. Assoc . L t d . ( P o u l t r y D i v . )
S.H. No. 63228
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
TRIAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N :
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL
-1252; and the UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CLC and AFL-CIO APPLICANTS
- and -NATHANSON, 3.: (orally)
It is not necessary to call upon you, Ms.
Roane, Mr. Ashley and Mr. Plowman. I am not satisfied
from the evidence in the affidavits filed and from
the argument that has been presented on behalf of the
applicant that a case has been made out for the exercise
of the Court's discretion by way of certiorari.
In two applications for certification by
a new union to replace an incumbent union, the name
of the incumbent union was wrongly stated on the ballots
i n b o t h v o t e s , a l t h o u g h t o t h e second v o t e t h e c o r r e c t name was added i n b r a c k e t s a f t e r t h e wrong name. The c o r r e c t name o f a n o t h e r union e l s e w h e r e i n Canada which may be known t o union members e r r o r had been d i s c o v e r e d t o o l a t e f o r t h e f i r s t v o t e , b u t i n t i m e f o r t h e second t h e a t t e n t i o n of an o f f i c i a l Board of Nova S c o t i a , which of t h e v o t e s , b u t he d e c l i n e d t o make any change o t h e r t h a n t o add t h e p r o p e r i n b r a c k e t s a f t e r t h e i n c o r r e c t of v o t i n g , no employee o b j e c t e d way t h a t he o r s h e w a s of t h e incumbent union. A un ion s igned a c e r t i f i c a t e , one of t h e v o t e s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t conducted i n a p r o p e r manner. Dur ing t h e c o u r s e t h e Board r u l e d t h a t it would t o p o s s i b l e c o n f u s i o n a r i s i n g b a l l o t s , b u t w o u l d . l i m i t t h a t t h e incumbent un ion r e s p e c t t o a c t u a l c o n f u s i o n Wi tnesses t e s t i f i e d , b u t none gave e v i d e n c e a s t o a c t u a l c o n f u s i o n . The Board a s k e d t h e i r v o t e s r e f l e c t e d t h e i r t r u e wishes : responded i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e . on t h e b a l l o t w i t h r e s p e c t wrong name i s i n f a c t t h e i n Nova S c o t i a . The v o t e . It was b rough t t o of t h e Labour R e l a t i o n s w a s s u p e r v i s i n g t h e conduc t name of t h e incumbent union name. A t t h e t i m e o r i n d i c a t e d i n any confused a b o u t t h e i d e n t i t y s c r u t i n e e r f o r t h e incumbent a t l e a s t w i t h r e s p e c t t o e v e r y t h i n g had been of i n t e r v e n t i o n h e a r i n g s , n o t h e a r a rguments a s from t h e names on t h e i t s e l f t o h e a r i n g e v i d e n c e might w i s h t o p r e s e n t w i t h t h a t may h a v e e x i s t e d . some w i t n e s s e s whether e a c h of them
The p o s i t i o n of w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e incumbent u n i o n ' s name was a t e c h n i c a l i r r e g u l a r i t y which d i d because o f s . 7 of t h e Trade Ch.19 a s f o l l o w s : "lrre&larity D o e s N o t I n v a l i d a t e P roceed ing 7 No p r o c e e d i n g s under t h i s A c t , i n c l u d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n o r o t h e r a n c e w i t h S e c t i o n accordance w i t h S e c t i o n by r e a s o n of any d e f e c t t e c h n i c a l i r r e g u l a r i t y . " F o r i t s p a r t , t h a t t h e Board a c t e d beyond i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . The j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e -Act : The Board i s r e q u i r e d whole of t h e p r o c e s s of p r o c e e d i n g under t h e Act. p a r t of t h a t p r o c e s s and t h a t p r o c e e d i n g . t h e v o t e , t h e Board was r e q u i r e d t o do by i t s g o v e r n i n g s t a t u t e . f o r e a c t i n g w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . A t e c h n i c a l i r r e g u l a r i t y a d e v i a t i o n from what i s s t r i c t l y r e q u i r e d . was of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t , of t h e incumbent u n i o n s h o u l d t h e b a l l o t s , what o c c u r r e d s t r ic t r e q u i r e m e n t . I t was and , a s s u c h , it was governed by s . 7 , o f t h e -A c t . t h e Board i s t h a t t h e e r r o r n o t i n v a l i d a t e t h e v o t e s Union A c t , S.N.S. 1972, p r o c e e d i n g s i n accord 40 and a r b i t r a t i o n i n 103 a r e i n v a l i d i n form o r any t h e incumbent un ion s u b m i t s of t h e Board i s set o u t t o s u p e r v i s e t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n , which i s a The t a k i n g of a v o t e i s I n s u p e r v i s i n g d o i n g e x a c t l y what it was It was t h e r e may b e d e f i n e d a s The Board a l t h o u g h t h e c o r r e c t name p r o p e r l y have been on w a s a d e v i a t i o n from t h a t a t e c h n i c a l i r r e g u l a r i t y
It was s u b m i t t e d t h a t c o n f u s i o n i n t h e minds o f employees v o t i n g v i t i a t e d t h e v o t e . n o t a g r e e , and n e i t h e r do I. of Deborah Smi th , f i l e d i n s u p p o r t o f Notice ( A p p l i c a t i o n I n t e r i s no f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h e Ten of t h e t h i r t y - t h r e e b e g i n w i t h t h e words: "TBAT I do v e r i l y b e l i e v e ...". See p a r a g r a p h s 8 , 9 , 1101, 11, 1 2 , 31. There i s t h e r e f o r e no i n t h e minds of t h e v o t i n g e v i d e n c e e x i s t e d , it was t h a t was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Board were a l l e g a t i o n s , submiss i o n s and b e l i e f s . The I am a t a l o s s t o u n d e r s t a n d why e x p e c t e d t o a c t i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s e v i d e n c e upon which t o b a s e i t s a c t i o n s . of p roof i s a lways upon was p r o p e r f o r t h e Board t o f u l f i l l t h e burden of proof which w a s upon it. The a c t u a l f i n d i n g of t o s . 7 of t h e -A c t w a s t h a t t h e b a l l o t s f o r t h e t w o v o t e s was prima f a c i e a t e c h n i c a l e r r o r . That gave t h e o p p o r t u n i t y un ion t o come fo rward and a t e c h n i c a l e r r o r , t h a t t h e r e had been some real a c t u a l c o n f u s i o n i n t h e minds a r i g h t which t h e Board The Board d i d My p e r u s a l of t h e a f f i d a v i t t h e O r i g i n a t i n g P a r t e s ) , r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e a l l e g a t i o n of c o n f u s i o n . p a r a g r a p h s of t h a t a f f i d a v i t 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 30 and e v i d e n c e o f a c t u a l c o n f u s i o n employees. Even i f such n o t b e f o r e t h e Board. A l l Board i n s i s t e d upon f a c t s . t h e Board s h o u l d be where t h e r e i s no The burden t h e a l l e g i n g p a r t y , and it t o r e q u i r e t h e incumbent union t h e Board w i t h r e s p e c t t h e wrong name b e i n g on t o t h e incumbent p rove t h a t it w a s more t h a n of t h e employees. T h a t w a s w a s n o t r e q u i r e d t o g i v e t o
the incumbent union. But it did so. And the union
was unable to prove what it alleged.
The incumbent union made a strong pleas that
it is impossible and improper to inquire into how
employees vote, that the voting process is and should
be strictly secret. I agree that it should be secret
before the vote is taken, but after the vote is taken
I see nothing wrong with the Labour Relations Board
requiring a party that alleges confusion to do what
is done in all court actions and proceedings before
tribunals, that is, to bear the burden of proof.
The question that the Board put to the witnesses arose directly from a provision of the -Act that imposes upon the Board a duty to ascertain the wishes of the employees: "Vote of mployees
24 (1) Where a trade union makes applica-
tion for certification ... the Board shall take a vote of the employees in the unit
applied for to determine their wishes with
respect to the certification of the applicant
trade union as their bargaining agent."
Against the background of that provision, it can hardly be said that the Board was wrong or patently unreasonable in basing its decision upon the answers to the question it put to the employees who testified at the intervention hearings. . The Board acted correctly, reasonably and
2I=;y I d e c l i n e t o e x e r c i s e my d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t c e r t i o r a r i , and I r e f u s e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . The u n s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t w i l l pay t h e c o s t s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t , a f t e r t a x a t i o n t h e r e o f . H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a May 3 1 , 1988
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.