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


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top