In each of the assignments, your assigned student group will prepare, collectively, a paper which one of your group members will upload for marking to Turnitin on the due date. Uploads must be in Word format only.
Your group will also orally defend your paper in class on its due date.
The assignments will be posted in Moodle, as well as their due dates. Your paper for each assignment will be in the form of a judgment, as if you were the BC Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) deciding the issues posed in the case studies assigned. Your judgments should be 4-5 pages long (including title page), 1.5 line spaced, 8.5 x 11 paper, 12 point type.
I expect your judgments to include these elements:
o Content that is expressed in proper English, by which I mean grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs, and proper spelling.
o The following topic headings: Issue(s), Test(s) to be Applied, Analysis and Decision.
o The topic headings should include discussion that is appropriate to the specific topic heading, i.e.:
 The Issue(s) section states the question(s) that the Board will have to answer in order to decide the application referred to in the case study. What is the nature of the application that a party has brought to the Board, and what is it that the Board will have to decide?
 The Test(s) to be Applied section states the criteria the Board will apply to answer the question(s) posed in the Issue(s) section. What are the factors the Board will have to consider in order to decide the application? As all of the assignments address issues arising under the British Columbia Labour Relations Code, I will be expecting you to properly identify, and to reproduce, the relevant section(s) in the Code you, as the Labour Relations Board, would have to consider when deciding the issues presented in each case.
 The Analysis and Decision section will discuss the opposing arguments of the employer and the union, having regard to the Issue(s) posed, and the
relevant Test(s) to be Applied. It will also contain your analysis of those arguments, and your decision.
 The Analysis and Decision section must incorporate reasoning that reflects an understanding of the Issue(s), the Test(s) to be Applied, and the arguments of both parties. You must make a definite Decision in your judgment; you must declare a winner. You must also provide compelling reasons for the Decision you have made. Your Decision should be expressed in such a way that it makes logical sense, and is persuasive, particularly to the losing party.
Below, you will find a case study of the type I like to assign, and a form of judgment I have prepared, which may act as a guide.
Case Study
Job positions at the centre include warehouse workers, office staff and retail staff. The Union is applying to the BC Labour Relations Board for certification of a bargaining unit composed of only the warehouse workers. The Employer argues that the bargaining unit should include all workers at the warehouse, except for commissioned sales staff.
The distribution centre is located in a building of approximately 68,000 square feet and contains three distinct business units: warehouse, office and order desk; main counter; and auto-body materials unit. There are thirty employees in the warehouse, eight in the office, and four at the order desk; twenty-nine employees at the main counter; and five employees in the auto-body materials unit.
The warehouse is physically separate from the office and the order desk. Employees in the warehouse include parts handlers, shipping clerks, receiving clerks, lead hands, and supervisors. Employees in the office are clerks, receptionists, secretaries, and a parts handler. The employees at the order desk are clerks. In the other two business units, the job classifications include drivers, dispatchers, parts handlers, clerks, and counter staff.
Each business unit has its own payroll and timekeeping functions in addition to the responsibility of maintaining its own financial records. All payroll information is sent to the company’s headquarters for processing. The pay rates and benefits for each unit are standardized, although there are performance-based incentives that may result in different levels of bonuses depending on the unit’s performance.
All employees receive basic standardized training, and the Employer’s personnel policies apply to all employees regardless of which unit they work in. The hours of operation for each business unit vary. Each unit has its own social activities, although there are also company-wide activities that all employees are welcome to attend.
The general manager for the distribution centre says that the entire centre works as a “cohesive team.” In particular, many non-warehouse employees occasionally must visit the warehouse to complete their assigned tasks, primarily to pick up stock. Office employees also assist in the warehouse during yearly inventory, and they help out if the warehouse employees fall behind in their work.
A modest number of interdepartmental transfers have occurred over the years. One employee’s position changed from being a full-time job at the main counter to being a part-time job divided between computer and catalogue work in the office and work in the warehouse. Another employee spends a portion of his day in the warehouse and then works the rest of his shift at the order desk.
The Union’s Position
The Union argues that a Board order certifying the Union as the bargaining agent for the warehouse employees alone will not be unduly disruptive for the Employer. Moreover, the Union asserts that while it may be said a bargaining unit of all the employees at the centre would be the ideal unit, all the Union has to show is that a unit of the warehouse workers alone is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. The Union says that it is.
The Employer’s Position
The Employer argues that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit will “draw lines and raise walls” between the employees working in the various business units within the distribution centre. It will also lead to extra cost for the Employer, as the wages and benefits paid to the unionized workers may differ from those provided to the employees who will remain outside the bargaining unit.
In addition, the Employer says that the “normal lines” of progression and interchange of employees within the centre will be disrupted under the Union’s proposal. It is feared that the “team culture” the Employer has worked to instill within its workforce will be undermined if one aspect of the operation is unionized, while the others are not.
Assume you are the Labour Relations Board deciding the Union’s application. Write a decision disposing of the application, following the instructions provided in Moodle.
BUAD 279 Industrial Relations
Case Study
Durable Auto Parts and the Mechanical Workers’ Union
Instructor:
Student Names:
Date:
Issues
The Union has applied for an order certifying it as the exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees located in the warehouse component of the Employer’s distribution centre located in Kelowna. The Union proposes to exempt from the bargaining unit the other employees located in the centre, including the office staff and retail staff.
The Employer argues that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is too small, and that it should include most of the other employees employed at the centre.
The issue the Board must decide is whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate for collective bargaining.
Tests to be Applied
In applications for certification the Board must determine whether the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is appropriate for collective bargaining. Section 22(1) of the BC Labour Relations Code says this:
22(1) When a trade union applies for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit, the board must determine if the unit is appropriate for collective bargaining and may, before certification, include additional employees in or exclude employees from the unit.
The principal factor that informs the Board’s consideration of this issue is whether the employees the Union proposes to include in the bargaining unit have established the requisite community of interest for the purposes of collective bargaining. This means that they have employment interests in common with each other which may be said to distinguish them from other employees employed by the Employer who need not, therefore, be included in the bargaining unit.
The size and location of the bargaining unit is also a relevant factor. The Board will want to ensure that the interests of the persons to be included in the bargaining unit can properly be represented by the Union within the proposed unit. The Board will also be concerned that the size and composition of the unit is conducive to collective bargaining, in the sense that neither party will enjoy a significant bargaining advantage over the other, and it is likely that a viable bargaining relationship will be developed over time.
Finally, it is a principle to be applied that the bargaining unit proposed by a union need not be the most appropriate unit. It need only be an appropriate unit.
Analysis and Decision
The Union argues that its proposed bargaining unit is appropriate for collective bargaining. It says that the warehouse employees are sufficiently distinct and separate from the other operations in the centre that they can be said to be a definable group with their own community of interest. They perform work which is different from the work performed by the other employees in the centre. There is very limited interchange of work and jobs between the separate operations within the centre, given the number of employees working there.
The Union says that even if another bargaining unit would be more appropriate, all it has to demonstrate is that the warehouse employees are an appropriate unit. Given the separate job functions the warehouse employees perform within the centre, and the fact that the work is performed in a separate space within the centre, the Union argues that a separate bargaining unit for the warehouse employees is workable for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The Employer argues that the unionization of the warehouse aspect of its operation will create internal barriers within the centre. It says the Union’s proposed unit will force it to deal with individual employees in the non-unionized parts of its business, and the Union
when dealing with the warehouse employees. This may, and probably will, result in different wages and benefits for these separate parts of its operation, which in turn will tend to increase the cost to the Employer of managing its workforce. The Employer says that if there is to be a certification order in respect of its employees, all its employees in the centre with the exception of its commissioned sales staff should be included within the bargaining unit for which the Union is certified, so as to encourage uniformity of treatment regarding the working conditions of all the employees working at the centre, and the preservation of the “team” spirit that the Employer says has marked its operation to date.
The Board has decided to allow the application of the Union.
The warehouse function within the centre appears to be a distinct operation. Like the other units within the operation, it has its own payroll and timekeeping functions, and its own financial performance record-keeping. The employees within the warehouse constitute a definable group. Their work is of a different character than the other work that is performed at the centre. They have their own hours of work, and their own social functions. The interchange of employees between functions within the centre seems modest, given the number of employees working there. The warehouse workers can, therefore, be said to have a distinct community of interest.
While the warehouse employees make up less than half the total number of workers in the centre, their numbers are sufficient to give the Board confidence that a workable bargaining relationship with the Employer can be established. Certainly, the number of warehouse employees is not so low, relatively, that the Board fears the Union will be at a significant disadvantage in dealing with the Employer in negotiations.
While it can be said that all the employees at the centre share a community of interest in the sense that they all play a part in the goal of providing service to the Employer’s customers, the Employer’s division of its operation into separate units itself shows that different parts of the operation serve different functions within the whole. This supports
a conclusion that areas like the warehouse, where one of those different functions are performed, may have a separate community of interest that is significant enough to warrant the creation of a bargaining unit on its own.
It is true that if, as the Board has decided, the warehouse workers are a unit that is appropriate for collective bargaining, it may mean that the workforce at the centre may become fragmented, with employees in the warehouse becoming unionized, while other employees working in other areas are not. The Board finds, however, that this possibility should not, in this instance, trump the desire of the warehouse workers to be represented by the Union when it comes to negotiating their conditions of employment with the Employer.
The Employer’s fears concerning the loss of the “team” atmosphere if the Union is certified only for the warehouse employees appears speculative. The same can be said for the Employer’s concern that it will be required to establish two sets of rules and working conditions, one for the unionized workers, and one for the employees who remain outside the bargaining unit. This is a matter for collective bargaining, in which the Employer will be an equal participant. It is entirely unknown whether the Employer’s fears in this regard will ever be realized.
The Board orders that a bargaining unit composed of the warehouse workers alone is appropriate for collective bargaining.