These two decisions also relate to the same subject matter:
OLRB decision re: OSSTF District 25 v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
OLRB decision re: OPSEU v. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
In The Millcroft Inn Limited, decision dated August
25, 2000, the OLRB dealt with whether, by refusing to provide the union with
the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the employees in the bargaining
unit represented by the union, the employer violated section 70, which reads:
No employer or employers’ organization and no person
acting on behalf of an employer or an employers’ organization shall
participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or
administration of a trade union…
The Facts:
There were 26 employees in the bargaining unit. The union’s
predecessor had been the bargaining agent of the employees for approximately 8
years. Soon after being declared the successor bargaining agent, the union
requested of the employer the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the
employees in the bargaining unit. The request was denied. The reason for the
denial was the company’s policy of respecting the privacy of employees.
The collective agreement did not impose any obligation on
the employer to provide the information sought by the union. The parties were
not in bargaining.
The employer was not opposed to the union having the
information sought, it just would not provide it without the individual
employees’ consent.
The Board ruled:
The employer sees no contradiction in it having the
names, addresses and telephone numbers of employees and yet advancing a
right of privacy concerning that information in relation to the union. The
employer and the union are equal bargaining partners in their collective
relationship. The employer is in no more preferential position in relation
to the employees than is the union in the context of their collective
bargaining relationship. In that context, the employer is not entitled to
greater rights in relation to the employees than is the union. To the extent
that the employer is entitled to know the names, addresses and telephone
numbers of the employees, i.e. to the extent that their privacy rights to
that information are compromised by the employer sharing it, so too is the
union entitled to the information.
…The establishment of a collective bargaining
relationship between a union and an employer entails a change in the
employment relationship between the employer and its workers. The change is
from an individual to an collective basis of the relationship—the union
becomes the agent for the employees and, as such, it is entitled to speak on
their behalf as if they were together negotiating as a group. The individual
employees may not make their own individual bargains or deals with the
employer. To that end, the union is entitled to take full instructions from
them and to represent them. For the union to do so, it must be able to
communicate effortlessly with the employees.
…The employees could have chosen to bargain
individually with the employer; then the privacy of their phone numbers and
addresses would be restricted between them and the employer. But they have
not chosen that method of bargaining. They have chosen to bargain
collectively with the employer through the union. Having made that election,
they are bound by its consequences. They are represented by the union; the
union speaks on their behalf; they may no longer speak directly with the
employer over the terms and conditions of their employment, that must be
done through the union. Their individual privacy rights as employees have
been partially superceded by the union’s rights as their representative.
