Skip to content

The New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board affirms longstanding practice against piecemeal certification of bargaining units

Bryan Mills and John Morse

On May 21, 2019, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (”Board”) dismissed an application by the New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees (“Union”) seeking certification as bargaining agent for three of Cannabis NB’s retail stores.

The Board concluded that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union was inappropriate, and simply did not have enough support to be certified. The proposed bargaining unit consisted of employees from only three of the twenty stores. The Board concluded that that the appropriate bargaining unit would consist of all Cannabis NB retail employees.

The Board cautioned that to certify the small local bargaining units as proposed, could have led to exactly the type of complicated and highly fragmented system that the Board has consistently attempted to avoid. The Board reiterated its position that larger bargaining units make good labour relations sense.

Background

Cannabis NB Ltd. (“Cannabis NB”) operates a retail network of twenty stores across New Brunswick, employing over 200 workers in various retail positions

The Union filed three separate applications and sought certification as the exclusive bargaining agent in each of the following Cannabis NB retail locations:

  • Miramichi;
  • Campbellton; and
  • Saint John – Lansdowne.

The Union’s application targeted three Cannabis NB locations employing 32 retail staff at the time of the Board’s decision, while the Retail Store Staff Occupational Group contained over 200 retail staff across all 20 locations.

Employer’s position

At the hearing of this matter, Cannabis NB argued that all employees in the Cannabis NB Ltd. Retail Store Staff Occupational Group had to be included in the bargaining unit. Cannabis NB argued that the Board has consistently maintained a practice against fragmentation, or proliferation of small bargaining units, and that this approach is consistent with good labour relations practice.

Cannabis NB pointed out that this argument has been accepted at both the provincial and federal level. At the federal level, the sheer size of the public service, the dispersal of employees throughout the country and at various points in the world, the complexity of the employment relationship and the multiplicity of classifications into which employees are divided, makes undue fragmentation impractical and probably unworkable. The same is true at the provincial level. Bargaining units should correspond to large occupation categories in terms of similar or readily comparable functions.

Union’s position

The Union contended that subsection 24(5) of the Public Service Relations Act (“Act”), which requires the appropriate bargaining unit to include all employees in a particular occupational group, did not apply to their application. Being of the view that subsection 24(5) was inapplicable, the Union further asserted that their application in no way contravened the “rules” for certification found in the Act.

The Union also argued that the drafters of the Act did not consider retail distribution at the time the Act was drafted, and that the rules therein should not be applicable to retail. The Union also argued that the Board should consider cases in the banking industry where labour boards have certified bargaining units on a branch-by-branch basis.

The Board’s decision

The Board accepted Cannabis NB’s position and dismissed the application. The Board concluded that the certification of the proposed bargaining unit would create the very type of fragmentation that Board has consistently tried to avoid, which would do nothing to promote good labour relations.

The Board determined that the appropriate bargaining unit would consist of all employees in the Cannabis NB Ltd. Retail Store Staff Occupational Group, employed across the 20 retail locations.

In its decision, the Board emphasized the importance of creating a system of collective bargaining in which good labour relations can flourish. Simplicity and order make good labor relations sense, while fragmentation does not.

This decision reiterates the importance of the longstanding principle that fragmented bargaining units should be discouraged, and do not promote good labour relations.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top