13
be created, other than the one which is proposed, which would be more ideal from
the point of view of collective bargaining policy. The Board has generally been
more interested in assessing whether the bargaining unit which is proposed stands
a good chance of forming a sound basis for a collective bargaining relationship
than in speculating about what might be an ideal configuration.
[56] Second, generally speaking the Board’s preference is for larger, broadly based units
so as to avoid issues of certifying an under-inclusive unit. In Saskatchewan Joint Board,
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v O.K. Economy Stores (A Division of
Westfair Foods Ltd.) 24 [O.K. Economy] a case cited by both the Applicant and the City,
former Vice-Chairperson Hobbs explained this preference as follows at page 66:
In Saskatchewan, the Board has frequently expressed a preference for larger and
few bargaining units as a matter of general policy because they tend to promote
administrative efficiency and convenience in bargaining, enhance lateral mobility
among employees, facilitate common terms and conditions of employment,
eliminate jurisdictional disputes between bargaining units and promote industrial
stability by reducing incidences of work stoppages at any place of work (see
[United Steel Workers of America v Industrial Welding (1975) Limited, 1986 Feb.
Sask. Labour Rep. 45]). . . .
This does not mean that large is synonymous with appropriate. Whenever the
appropriateness of a unit is in issue, whether large or small, the Board must
examine a number of factors assigning weight to each as circumstances arise.
[57] Third, this Board has identified, and regularly applied, a number of relevant factors, of
which size of the proposed unit is but one, to determine whether the proposed unit is an
appropriate unit for purposes of bargaining collectively with the employer. Those factors
were helpfully enumerated in O.K. Economy as follows, again at page 66:
Those factors include among others: whether the proposed unit of employees will
be able to carry on a viable collective bargaining relationship with the employer;
the community of interest shared by the employees in the proposed unit;
organizational difficulties in particular industries; the promotion of industrial
stability; the wishes or agreement of the parties; the organizational structure of the
employer and the effect that the proposed unit will have upon the employer’s
operations; and the historical patterns of organization in the industry.
The Board recognizes that there may be a number of different units of employees
which are appropriate for collective bargaining in any particular industry.
[58] Fourth, units that may be characterized as “under-inclusive” may be certified as
appropriate in certain circumstances. The leading case on this issue appears to be Graphic
Communications International Union, Local 75M v Sterling Newspapers Group, a Division
of Hollinger Inc. [Sterling Newspapers Co.]. In this decision, former Chairperson Gray on
behalf of the majority of the Board (Member Carr dissenting), reviewed the Board’s prior
jurisprudence on under-inclusive units, including authorities cited by counsel in this matter
such as Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1902-08 v Young Women’s Christian
Association et al., and Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union v Saskatchewan Centre of the Arts. She summarized her analysis as follows at para.
34:
From this review of cases, it would appear to the Board that under-inclusive
bargaining units will not be considered to be appropriate in the following
circumstances: (1) there is no discrete skill or other boundary surrounding the unit
that easily separates it from other employees; (2) there is intermingling between