- May 26, 2021
- Certifications/Decertifications
In this application for certification, the Union sought to represent employees of Solotech in two proposed bargaining units, one comprising touring stage technicians, and the other comprising on location technicians who repair rental equipment. Solotech’s position was that the only appropriate bargaining unit would include all employees, including stage technicians and all repair service employees, except office employees.
In addition, the Union argued that Solotech’s contracting out of its equipment transportation drivers to Transport Herve Lemieux (“THL”) one month after the application date was an unfair labour practice aimed at fracturing the workforce and intimidating the employees. Solotech said the contracting out was done in the ordinary course of business and was planned in advance of the application for certification, and that THL was now the true employer of the drivers.
The Union further argued that Solotech had acted unlawfully by providing forms purporting to be Union membership revocation forms to the employees. Among other remedies, the Union sought an order directing the holding of a representation vote in whatever bargaining unit the Board deemed appropriate, including in the event that the Union did not have cards from employees representing 35% of that bargaining unit.
The Board determined that a bargaining unit of stage technicians would be inappropriate given the similarity of their work with that of other technicians, and their intermingling with other technicians. The Board further determined that it would be inappropriate to split off repair technicians working on rental equipment from other repair technicians. As a result, the Board accepted Solotech’s position that the only appropriate bargaining unit comprised all employees except office employees. The Union did not have cards representing 35% of the appropriate bargaining unit. Therefore, the Board said it would only order a representation vote if it found the unfair labour practice allegations to be well-founded.
Based on the evidence it heard, the Board determined that the contracting out of the drivers was done for legitimate business purposes and did not amount to an unfair labour practice. The Board also accepted the evidence of a Solotech manager who testified that he provided the revocation forms after he was approached by employees inquiring about how to rescind their Union membership cards, and that he did not encourage the employees to use the forms. The Board concluded the Union had not proved that Solotech committed any unfair labour practices.
Finally, the Board applied the “true employer” analysis to the facts and determined that THL was the employer of the former Solotech drivers.