Informe provisional - Informe núm. 160, Marzo 1977

1. 333. The complaint of the Canadian workers' Union (CWU), which related to the Province of Ontario, was contained in a communication dated 18 February 1976. Further information in support of the complaint was transmitted by the CWU in communications dated 18 March, 10 and 27 April 1976.
2. 334. The complaint and the additional information supplied by the complainants were transmitted to the Government of Canada which, by a communication dated 7 July 1976, sent the observations of the Government of Ontario on the matter.
3. 335. Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainants

• Allegations relating to Canron Limited
  336. 336 In its complaint dated 18 February 1976 the CWU stated that in 1974 the workers of Canron Limited, Rexdale, Ontario, had invited it to organise there in order to displace the company union, namely Shopmen's Local Union 743 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, which is affiliated to the Canadian Labour Congress and the AFL-CIO. According to the complainants the company union had refused to support the workers in any way.
  337. 337 The complainants added that, during a strike in 1973, the Ironworkers' Union (Local 743) had shown by its actions that its attitude was pro-company and not in favour of the workers who, as a condition of employment, were members of that union.
  338. 338 Efforts made by the complainants to organise the workers were opposed and a trailer set up near the factory by the complainants was painted over with signs and slogans and had to be removed.
  339. 339 The Ontario Labour Relations Board, with which the complainant organisation had deposited signed membership cards representing 75 per cent of the workers, had ordered that a vote should be taken on 11 April 1975. As a result, the company (Canron) began to intimidate and harass the workers. For example, the general foreman, on 14 January 1975, posted a notice prohibiting employees from engaging in union organisation activities of any nature on behalf of any union during working hours or on company property. This prohibition, continued the complainants, was later explained by the general foreman as applying to the CWU and not to the Ironworkers' Union.
  340. 340 The complainants continued that three CWU organisers had been dismissed for actively organising the workers, as a result of which, on 14 and 15 May 1975, the workers walked off the job. In retaliation, the company issued its consent to prosecute each of the workers for participation in an illegal strike, which would have resulted in a maximum $1,000 fine and a possible prison sentence. Subsequently the charges which had been brought against 296 workers were withdrawn by the company, which issued its consent to prosecute the organisers of the CWU for having organised an illegal strike. The complainants added that six of its members were dismissed for having participated in the formation of the CWU at Canron. On 26 September 1975, after many lengthy hearings, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the company's consent to prosecute the six defendants as the charges against them were unfounded.
  341. 341 The complainants gave examples of the manner in which supporters of the CWU were harassed and intimidated by the company and stated that any grievance forwarded by the employees was ignored by the company and never put forward by the Ironworkers' steward system.
  342. 342 One of the CWU organisers, continued the complainants, was dismissed by Canron and given ten minutes to leave its property, and another leading CWU organiser suddenly received unfounded warnings from the company and was not allowed to exercise the grievance procedures available to him. The complainants alleged that the object of the company and the Ironworkers' Shopmen's Local 743 was to rid the company of CWU organisers and thereby ultimately destroy the union.
  343. 343 The complainants gave further examples of two former officials of the CWU who, having received certain favours from the company, left the Union and conspired with the company to destroy the CWU.
  344. 344 The complainants continued that the Ironworkers' Union issued leaflets to the workers both at the Canron Company and at another company, Frankel Steel Ltd., informing the workers that the reason why these companies did not wish to negotiate a new labour contract was the existence of the CWU. The purpose of these leaflets, added the complainants, was to discourage the workers from membership of the CWU.
  345. 345 The complainants alleged that the Government of Ontario was preventing a large number of Canadian trade unionists from breaking away from the United States-controlled unions by allowing the Ontario Labour Relations Board to deny certification to Canadian unions for the most technical reasons. In this connection, the complainants added that, when the Canadian Workers' Union requested certification, it also asked that if a vote should be required at Canron a pre-hearing vote should be taken. The complainants explained that, according to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, a union applying for certification may so apply if it has submitted 35 per cent signed membership cards in respect of the working force. If signed membership cards representing 65 per cent of the working force can be submitted, the union concerned is entitled to certification without a vote. The complainants continued that, when there is an existing union at a plant, a vote may be called and the ballot box sealed until hearings may take place before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The complainants continued that, in spite of a submission of signed membership cards in respect of 75 per cent of the workforce at Canron, the Labour Relations Board granted a vote and ordered the ballot box to be sealed and the votes to remain uncounted pending hearings on the status of the CWU. According to the complainants, the Labour Relations Board had joined forces with the company and the Shopmen's Union (Local 743) to destroy the CWU.
  346. 346 In addition, the complainants alleged that one of the members of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and President of the Ontario Federation of Labour, Mr. David Archer, had actively and publicly campaigned in favour of the American International Union (Ironworkers' Local 743) at Canron and against the CWU only weeks before the vote was taken on 11 April 1975. The complainants added that the Minister of Labour for Ontario was also on record as being opposed to the CWU.
  347. 347 In spite of various representations to the Government, continued the complainants, the Government remained unresponsive as regards the counting of the votes in respect of which a ballot had been held. With regard to the counting of the votes, however, and the unsealing of the ballot boxes, hearings continued at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
  348. 348 With regard to these hearings, the complainants alleged that the Board itself had called the police to eject witnesses who had been called to testify on behalf of the CWU. The CWU also claimed that it was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses properly during these hearings. In addition, in a further attempt to demoralise the workers, any request made by the company or its American-based union to delay the progress of the hearings was entertained by the Board.
  349. 349 In a further communication dated 10 April 1976, the complainants again referred to the vote taken by the Ontario Labour Relations Board at Canron on 11 April 1975 and to the sealing of the ballot boxes by a representative of the Board following an intervention by the Canron Company.
  350. 350 The complainants also added that, shortly afterwards, the company issued to the workers a job supplement form for completion in which the workers were asked to state specifically their union affiliation and their political affiliation. In this way, added the complainants, the company would have been able to determine with great accuracy the result of the vote and the information would enable the company to decide on the strategy to be adopted with regard to the workers. According to the complainants, some 50 workers were subsequently dismissed. One CWU organiser, according to the complainants, had been dismissed by the company for having included false information in the job supplement form and had not been able to find further employment.
• Allegations relating to Frankel Steel Limited
  351. 351 The complainants also stated that certification had also been sought from the Ontario Labour Relations Board on behalf of the workers at Frankel Steel Ltd. who, as a condition of their employment, must also be members of the Ironworkers' Local 743. The decision of the Labour Relations Board was again to have the ballot box sealed and the vote not counted. The complainants added that they had elected in this case to have a post-hearing vote in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Despite this legal request, the Board held a pre-hearing vote at Frankel even after a court had refused the Board power to hold such a vote.
• Allegations relating to Star Steel Limited
  352. 352 According to the complainants, the CWU had successfully organised the workers at the new steel industrial plant named Star Steel Limited, Ontario, where the labour force was controlled by the United Steelworkers of America, an international union affiliated to the AFL-CIO. On 3 March 1976 the CWU presented to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, for the purpose of certification, signed membership cards in respect of 90 per cent of the workforce. A pre-hearing vote was asked for by the CWU and arrangements were made for the vote to be taken on 26 March 1976. According to the complainants no indications were given by the Labour Relations Board that the ballot box would be sealed as it had been in the case of the vote taken at Canron.
  353. 353 The complainants added that when the United Steelworkers' Union realised that it was thereby losing control of one of its locals (Local 16503-USWA), it immediately issued a letter to the executive of the aforementioned Local placing it under trusteeship. The executive of this Local filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board a document stating that they would not oppose the application by the CWU and that they would support the wishes of the workers at Star Steel Limited. The United Steelworkers proceeded to hire counsel to represent the Union and also the Local 16503 in connection with the hearings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
  354. 354 Meantime, added the complainants, 12 CWU supporters received notice of dismissal to take effect as from 27 March 1976, the day following the vote.
  355. 355 The complainants added that the CWU won the vote at Star Steel Limited by 29 votes to 5 but, in spite of this, the United Steelworkers were continuing to try to have the vote overturned by challenging the status of the CWU as a bona fide trade union. For this purpose, continued the complainants, counsel for the United Steelworkers had applied for judicial review of the position of the Board to hold and count the vote at Star Steel Limited but had subsequently withdrawn his application. In the view of the complainants, this action constituted a form of intimidation of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
• Further allegations
  356. 356 The complainants also alleged that dilatory tactics were adopted by the Ontario Relations Board, especially in cases where it was obvious that the vote would be won by the CWU. In the case, however, of Frankel Steel where, if a vote had been taken, the Ironworkers' Union would probably have won the vote, proceedings had been speeded up in the hope, according to the complainants, that a loss for the CWU would have an effect on the outcome of the vote at Canron. The ballot boxes in connection with the vote at Canron remained sealed and the management of Canron would not negotiate with the Ironworkers' negotiating Committee until the question of the election of the legal bargaining agent had been determined. In the view of the complainants, the reason for the continuing delay of the Ontario Labour Relations Board was to aggravate the continuing discontent amongst the workforce at Canron. In addition, the long and complicated legal battle over the certification question had seriously depleted the financial resources of the CWU and meantime the management of Canron had decided no longer to pay the workers in cash, but by cheque, this action being purposely aimed at preventing the workers from being able to pay their dues to the CWU outside the gates of the factory. According to the complainants, this was in direct contravention of the Labour Relations Act, as payment in cash was negotiated in the last collective agreement and since this agreement was no longer in operation the provisions of section 70 of the Act became applicable. In the opinion of the complainants, the delaying tactics were being deliberately employed by the Ontario Labour Relations Hoard in the interests of the company and of the opposing union.
  357. 357 The complainants, in a further communication dated 9 July 1976, added that the three leaders of the Canadian Workers' Union who had been dismissed were still unemployed and were suffering severe financial hardship.

B. Reply of the Government

• General
  358. 358 The Government explained that, under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, a trade union is granted legal recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent for a group of employees when it is able to demonstrate that the majority of the employees wish to be so represented. The trade union then has bargaining rights for an "appropriate" unit of employees, which is a unit of employees with some community of interest. The Labour Relations Board is required to determine whether the employees in the proposed bargaining unit do have a community of interest and therefore are appropriate for collective bargaining. In Ontario, explained the Government, conciliation by a conciliation officer appointed by the Minister of Labour was a mandatory condition prior to a legal strike. If the parties failed to agree, they were free to strike or lock out. If the parties agreed, however, their agreement was embodied in a legally binding collective agreement and no strikes or lockouts were permitted during the term of the agreement. All disputes arising out of the interpretation, application or administration of the existing collective agreement had to be submitted to binding arbitration.
  359. 359 The Government proceeded to set out the scope of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The Board has extensive powers which are broadly similar to those exercised by a court, including the power to determine its own procedure and practice. It is required to give full opportunity to the parties to any proceedings before it to present their evidence and make their submissions. The Board is a tripartite tribunal and generally sits on panels composed of a representative of labour, a representative of management and a neutral chairman. After considering the evidence and the submissions of the parties on the matters at issue, the Board usually issues a decision with written reasons. The Board has the power to reconsider this decision if it is shown that there is good reason for it to do so. Most of the Board's work, explained the Government, concerns the relations between trade unions and employers. The Board however also considers some jurisdictional disputes between trade unions and problems that arise between employees and their employer, and between employees and their trade union.
  360. 360 The Government added that a trade union is defined as an "organisation of employees" and a union appearing before the Board is required to prove its "status", i.e. that it is a bona fide organisation of employees free from domination by employers. Once a trade union has demonstrated its status before the Board, it gains the right to represent a group of employees by demonstrating that the majority of that group of employees wishes the union to be its exclusive bargaining agent. Membership support is demonstrated either by the signing of membership cards or by secret ballot or both. If the trade union is able to submit membership evidence in proper form, showing that 55 per cent of the employees in the "appropriate bargaining unit" (as defined by the Board) are members of the union, the Board may certify the trade union without a vote. If the union can demonstrate membership support of at least 45 per cent, the Board will order a vote and, if the majority of those voting vote in favour of the union, the union is certified. A union may also file an application for a "pre-hearing vote" and, in this case, it requires only 35 per cent membership. The Government explained that the pre-hearing vote procedure is intended to give the trade union applicant a right to an immediate vote prior to the hearing which will consider such matters as "trade union status, the appropriate bargaining unit, charges of improper conduct, etc.".
  361. 361 The government went on to explain that the policy of the Act was to ensure stable collective bargaining relationships but, at the same time, to give the employees a right to reject their current bargaining agent if they wished to do so. Once the trade union and employer entered into a collective agreement, no strikes or lockouts were permitted for the term of the agreement. Strikes or lockouts which occurred during the term of the collective agreement were unlawful, and the Board could either order the striking employees back to work or give consent to permit prosecution in the courts for violation of the Act, or both.
• Allegations relating to Canron Limited
  362. 362 The Government stated that, on 3 March 1975, the CWU applied for certification for a unit of employees at Canron Limited, Eastern Structural Division. In its application, the CWU requested that a pre-hearing vote be conducted. The Government explained in this connection that, under section 9 of the Act, the Board may order a pre-hearing representation vote if it appears to the Board that not less than 35 per cent of the employees in a voting constituency found by the Board to be appropriate were members of the applicant union at the time of application. In its application, the CWU indicated that Shopmen's Local Union No. 743 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers (hereinafter referred to as the "Ironworkers") was known to the CWU as claiming to be the bargaining agent or representative of employees affected by the application. Notice of the application was therefore sent by the Board to the Ironworkers. On 7 March 1975, continued the Government, the Ironworkers filed an intervention in the proceedings with the Board.
  363. 363 The Government stated that, on 13 March 1975, a meeting of the parties was held by a Board labour relations officer to make preliminary arrangements for a pre-hearing vote. At that time, the Ironworkers alleged orally and in a letter filed with the Board that the CWU was not entitled to a pre-hearing vote because (a) it was not a bona fide union; (b) the membership evidence submitted was not reliable; and (c) the membership evidence submitted did not meet the CWU's membership requirements.
  364. 364 On 17 March 1975 the Board ordered that a pre-hearing vote be conducted but, in the light of the representations of the Ironworkers, and in accordance with section 8(3) of the Act, the Board ordered that the ballot boxes be sealed and the ballot not counted until the parties had been given a full opportunity to present their evidence and make their submissions. The Government explained that this procedure ensures that, if the applicant is entitled to a representation vote, the vote is conducted before the passage of time and events can distort the applicant's membership support. Moreover, continued the Government, this procedure of sealing the ballot box ensures that, if the applicant is not entitled to a vote, the other parties will not be prejudiced by the results of a vote being announced. Since the application will, if granted, result in the displacement of an incumbent trade union bargaining agent, the Board treats the application as a combination application for certification and application for termination of existing bargaining rights and, therefore, regardless of the evidence of membership support filed by the applicant, orders a vote to determine which trade union the employees want as their bargaining agent. In this case, a pre-hearing vote was requested by the applicant. Had such a request not been made, a vote, either pre-hearing or post-hearing, in the Board's discretion, would have been ordered.
  365. 365 According to the Government, the vote was conducted on 11 April 1975. Since the bargaining unit was already represented by the Ironworkers, the vote was a combination of a certification vote for the CWU and a termination vote as regards the Ironworkers. Voters were, therefore, asked whether they supported the incumbent Ironworkers or the applicant CWU.
  366. 366 In late April or early May, the parties filed with the Board further correspondence regarding the challenges made by the incumbent union and by the company as to the trade union status of the CWU. The Board also issued, at the separate request of the ironworkers and Canron, subpoenas to two witnesses who, in their view, were necessary to prove their allegations that the CWU did not have trade union status and that the Board's finding of status in a previous case in which the CWU had been an applicant had been fraudulently obtained.
  367. 367 At a hearing of the Board conducted on 24 April 1975, counsel for the two witnesses who had been subpoenaed objected to the subpoenas and refused to produce the witnesses. The Board adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to proceed in the courts to enforce the attendance of the witnesses. On 14 May 1975 a court order was granted for the appearance of these witnesses. At a further meeting of the Board on 22 May 1975, the Board was informed that counsel for the witnesses intended to appeal against the order of the court concerning the appearance of the witnesses and the hearing of the Board was duly adjourned.
  368. 368 On 24 June 1975 the Board issued a decision ordering that the matter be listed for hearing even though the Court of Appeal had not as yet heard the appeal concerning the appearance of the two witnesses. The Board's decision was based on its concern that proceedings should not be indefinitely delayed and it was not convinced that the other aspects of the case could not be dealt with in the interim. Further hearings of the matter took place on 2, 3, 4 and 31 July 1975, 1, 7 and 8 August 1975, 8, 9, 10 and 11 September 1975 and 4 and 5 December 1975. At these hearings evidence was led by the Ironworkers through one witness as to its charges that the CWU lacked union status. This witness was extensively examined and cross-examined. During the hearings, added the Government, the Board was required on three occasions to request - assistance from the police to maintain order.
  369. 369 On 9 October 1975 the Court of Appeal heard the appeal against the order that the two witnesses who had been subpoenaed should appear before the Board to give evidence. This appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Following the conclusion of the Ironworkers' case on 5 December 1975, the Board called upon counsel for Canron to present its case. When one of the witnesses subpoenaed again refused to take the stand to give evidence, the Board held that it would not itself commence proceedings to enforce the attendance of witnesses required by one of the parties. Accordingly, counsel for Canron advised the Registrar of the Board that the respondent did not intend to call any further witnesses in support of its allegation that the CWU lacked union status.
  370. 370 In a decision dated 7 January 1976 the Board found the charges made by the Ironworkers and Canron that the CWU lacked union status were unproven and ordered that the ballot box be unsealed and the votes counted. In a decision dated 22 January 1976 the Board certified the CWU as the bargaining agent for a group of employees at Canron.
  371. 371 With regard to the allegation that the President of the Ontario Federation of Labour, who was also a part-time member of the Labour Relations Board, had supported the Ironworkers during their campaign which preceded the vote at Canron on 11 April 1975, the Government explained that the CWU application for certification at Canron was heard by a panel of the Board which did not include the person in question and that this person took no part in the decision-making process nor did he have any contact with the panel, formal or informal, except as a result of his being subpoenaed by the CWU to attend at the earlier hearings.
• Allegations relating to Frankel Steel Limited
  372. 372 The Government stated that, on 25 April 1975, the CWU filed an application for certification for a group of employees at the above company. In this application, the CWU indicated that the ironworkers (viz. Shopmen's Local No. 743 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers) was the trade union known to the applicant as claiming to be the bargaining agent or representative of employees affected by the application. The Board therefore notified the Ironworkers as well as the respondent, Frankel, of the application and on 5 May 1975 the Ironworkers filed an intervention in the application.
  373. 373 The Board, after hearing charges filed by the CWU alleging improprieties against the Ironworkers that they did not have trade union status, having lost such status by collusive conduct with the employer Frankel, ordered that a pre-hearing vote be conducted and that the ballot box be sealed pending proceedings relating to the applicant's charges. The Government added that the CWU thereafter made application to the Supreme Court of Ontario for an order setting aside the decision of the Board ordering the vote on the grounds that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering a vote before hearing the CWU's charges. On 10 June 1975 the Board made a separate application to the Divisional Court for an order that it was at liberty to proceed with the vote pending the court hearing on the CWU's application. This application was, however, dismissed. By decision dated 20 June 1975, the Board directed the Registrar to proceed with the vote and to list the case for further hearing.
  374. 374 On 25 June 1975 the Board applied to the Supreme Court of Ontario for the issue of directions to facilitate a hearing of the CWU application for judicial review. This application was, however, dismissed by the Court on 3 July 1975.
  375. 375 After further hearings the Board, on 9 July 1975, having received the consent of all the parties, ordered the ballot box to be unsealed and the vote counted. The result of the vote according to the returning officer's report, which is produced by the Government, shows that 70 votes were marked in favour of the applicant and 167 votes marked in favour of Shopmen's Local No. 743. On 10 July 1975 the Board resumed hearings, at which time the CWU withdrew from the proceedings and the Board therefore dismissed the application.
  376. 376 In connection with the same application, the CWU had applied for judicial review of the Board's decision, taken on 13 May 1975, that a representation vote would be taken in the bargaining unit and that evidence in support of the applicant's allegations of impropriety would be entertained after the representation vote had been taken. This application was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3 and 4 September 1975 and on 5 March 1976 the CWU filed a notice of abandonment of its application for judicial review of this decision.
• Allegations relating to Star Steel Limited
  377. 377 In this case the Government explained that, on 3 March 1976, the CWU filed an application for certification for a unit of, employees at Star Steel Limited. In this application the CWU indicated that Local 16503 of the United Steelworkers of America was a trade union known to the CWU as claiming to be the bargaining agent or representative of employees who might be affected by the application. The Board therefore- notified Local 16503 of the application. On 4 March 1976, Local 16503 filed an intervention with the Board stating that it did not oppose the CWU's application for certification.
  378. 378 On 11 March 1976 the United Steelworkers of America filed an intervention in the application. On 17 March 1976 another intervention was filed by Local 16503, this time opposing the application and challenging the trade union status of the CWU. The two interventions, continued the Government, purportedly filed by Local 16503, were signed by different persons and gave different addresses for the intervener.
  379. 379 In accordance with the request of the CWU that a pre-hearing vote be held, the Board, on 18 March 1976, ordered such a vote and a vote was held on 26 March 1976, as a result of which the CWU received a majority of the votes.
  380. 380 The Government added that on 25 March 1976, the day before the vote was taken, the Board had received a notice of application for judicial review by the United Steelworkers of America and Local 16503 for an order quashing the decision of the Board of 18 March 1976 ordering a vote. These applicants had earlier requested the Board to order that the ballot box be sealed pending the examination of their charges that the CWU lacked trade union status but the Board had not acted on this request.
  381. 381 On 29 March 1976 the applicants in the judicial review notified the Board that they were withdrawing their application. Accordingly the Board, on 31 March 1976, instructed the Registrar to list the application for a hearing of the charges made by the intervener that the applicant did not have trade union status. On 12 April 1976 the Board heard evidence and entertained argument as to whether the United Steelworkers of America or its Local 16503 held the pre-existing bargaining rights at Star Steel. The Board also heard evidence and argument as to the effect of the recent trusteeship imposed on Local 16503 by the United Steelworkers of America and as to who was the proper representative of Local 16503. A decision on these matters, according to the Government, was still pending.
• The cases of Mr. E. Conlan, Mr. Taubert and Mr. Browne
  382. 382 As regards the allegations regarding the dismissed CWU leaders, the Government explained that on 17 and 18 September 1975 three complaints were filed with the Board by the above named, who alleged that they had been dismissed by Canron for trade union activities in contravention of the Labour Relations Act. A labour relations officer, appointed to endeavour to effect a settlement of these complaints, reported that he had been unable to do so and the first hearings in the matter were heard on 22 and 23 October 1975.
  383. 383 The Board decided to deal with these complaints separately and a number of hearings were held between October 1975 and April 1976. According to the Government, further hearings were scheduled for 19, 21 and 26 May 1976.
  384. 384 The Government explained in this connection that the normal hearing time at the Labour Relations Board for this type of case is one day. The unusual number of hearings required for this case reflected the fact that all the parties had indicated no desire to proceed in an expeditious manner. All the parties had engaged in time-consuming argument on procedural disputes as well as insisting on lengthy examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses. The Government added that the Board had scheduled and continued to schedule hearings on these matters as quickly as its workload would permit.

C. C. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  385. 385 The Committee has taken note of all the information supplied by the complainant organisation in this case together with the fully documented reply of the Government.
  386. 386 The allegations mainly concern the efforts made by the Canadian Workers' Union to obtain certification as exclusive bargaining agent in the Canron, Frankel and Star Steel Companies. In this connection, the complainants have contended that the managements of the respective companies and the local unions of the United Steelworkers of America, acting in concert, committed acts designed to prevent the Canadian Workers' Union from organising the workers in the respective companies, including, in particular, the dismissal of three CWU organisers. In the second place, the complainants have alleged that in the course of the proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board in connection with the CWU's applications for certification as bargaining agent, dilatory tactics were adopted by the Board itself with a view to delaying or preventing the granting of certification to the CWU.
  387. 387 The Committee has recognised that the right, conferred by Convention No. 87, of workers and employers to form and join organisations of their own choosing in full freedom includes the right of any group of workers (or employers) to form breakaway organisations if they think this desirable to safeguard their material or moral interests. With regard to procedures which provide for the certification of the most representative union in a given unit as the exclusive bargaining agent of that unit, the Committee has considered that such a procedure is not incompatible with the Convention provided that the determination of the most representative union is based on objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse.
  388. 388 In the present case, as regards the three companies mentioned in the complaint, the Committee notes that in the case of Star Steel Limited a pre-hearing vote was held, following a decision taken by the Labour Relations Board on 26 March 1976, and the CWU received a majority of the votes. The Committee notes, however, that the decision of the Board on a further intervention made by the opposing union is still pending. In the case of Frankel Limited, the Committee notes that, following a vote taken by order of the Board, the CWU did not obtain a majority of the votes, a majority being obtained by the opposing union - Shopmen's Local 743. In the case of Canron Limited, the Committee notes that the Board, in a decision dated 7 January 1976, ordered that the ballot box be unsealed and the votes counted. The CWU having obtained a majority of the votes, the Board, in a decision dated 22 January 1976, certified the CWU as the bargaining agent for a group of employees at Canron.
  389. 389 The Committee has also noted the further information supplied by the Government in connection with the certification of the CWU by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the case of two other companies, concerning which no allegations have been made by the complainants.
  390. 390 In connection with these applications the Committee notes that the legal provisions applying in Ontario as regards the certification of a union as the most representative union in a bargaining unit seem to have been properly and strictly applied. As regards the accusation that dilatory tactics were used by the Labour Relations Board itself to prevent the CWU from obtaining certification, the Committee considers, from the records of proceedings of the Ontario Labour Relations Board supplied by the Government, that the Board expedited the completion of the proceedings and that, where delays did occur, these were occasioned mainly by applications made by one of the parties challenging the trade union status of the other organisation and appealing to a court of law for judicial review of interim decisions taken by the Board.
  391. 391 The Committee considers that although the Canadian Workers' Union has produced evidence which indicates that attempts were made both by the rival union and by certain members of the management of Canron to prevent it from organising or becoming the certified bargaining agent of the workers concerned, it has not been established that the Government in any way acted improperly in connection with the acts which were committed.
  392. 392 The Ontario Labour Relations Act contains a number of important safeguards against acts of anti-union discrimination by employers. In this connection, as regards the dismissal by Canron of the three officers of the CWU, complaints were filed with the Labour Relations Board in September 1975. The Committee notes that the unusual number of hearings in what seems to be only the first one of these cases have not yet been completed and that decisions on all these cases have still to be taken. The Government has indicated that the delay in the procedure is due to the attitude adopted by the parties concerned (see paragraph 384 above). In any event, the Committee wishes to recall that, having regard to the fact that excessively lengthy proceedings can result in a denial of justice, it has drawn the attention in the past to the importance which it attaches to expeditious proceedings for the examination of cases concerning dismissals which could result from trade union activities, in the absence of which the offended employee will feel a growing sense of injustice, with consequent harmful effects on industrial relations.