Labour Relations Code Review Committee Report

Report of the B.C. Labour Relations Code Review Committee, April 11, 2003

On December 18th, 2002, the Minister of Skills Development and Labour appointed a Labour Relations Code Review Committee under Section 3 of the Labour Relations Code to study a number of specific issues under the Labour Relations Code.

The Committee's April 2003 report has been posted to this web site in Acrobat PDF format. You will need the Acrobat Reader software to view and print the report.

View the complete report (pdf, 80 pages, 231kb)
http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/lrcreview/report.htm

excerpt of pages 51 - 53 from issue 17-24 pdf
http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/lrcreview/issues7-14.pdf

ISSUE 11: MERGERS OF UNION LOCALS

page 51
Understanding the issue
National and international unions have constitutions and by-laws under which a union local is chartered. These constitutions and by-laws usually stipulate the national or international union has general rights over the union local, including:
· The right to place a union local under trusteeship and have it governed by designated officials; and
· The right to decide whether the union local can merge with another local of the same union or another union.
Under the Code, national and international unions are not recognized as trade unions in B.C. The Board therefore has limited jurisdiction over internal union matters such as those referred to above.

Our committee was asked whether the Code should be amended so as to govern the relationship between a union local and the national or international union under which it is chartered. In particular, we were asked to examine whether Sections 37 and 150 should be amended.

Community concerns
The employer community argues the Code should not govern the relationship between a local union and the national or international union that it is chartered under. They argue this is a matter for the union community to address and as long as the union adheres to its obligations under the Code, the internal affairs of the union should not be regulated by the legislature. At the same time, we learned through meetings with representatives of the employer community that they would not wish to have internal union restrictions interfere with the structure of collective bargaining.

The union community argues there is no need for the Code to govern internal union organizational issues. They point out that there already is some supervision of the internal arrangements of unions, including Sections 10 and 150 and the fact that the Code can grant a union successorship application that does not comply with the provisions of a national or international union constitution. As well, if members of a bargaining unit are dissatisfied with their union, they can decertify.

This issue is particularly of concern to the Carpenters (British Columbia Provincial Council of Carpenters) and its parent body the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The BCPCC argues that Section 37(1) should be amended to allow the Board to deal with the transfer of certification or voluntary recognition rights with or without the approval of international unions that are not bona fide trade unions in B.C.

page 52
Report of the B.C. Labour Relations Code Review Committee, April 11, 2003

The BCPCC argues that neither Section 10 nor Section 150 of the Code give the Board the power to restrict trusteeships where just and reasonable cause does not exist. They argue that Section 150 should be amended to add a provision that states, "A provincial, national or international trade union must not assume supervision or control over a subordinate trade union except for just and reasonable cause." They submit that these proposed amendments would bring B.C.'s legislation in line with Ontario's legislation.

The United Brotherhood argues for an amendment to Section 37 of the Code to allow for a distinction between inter-union mergers and intra-union mergers. The reason for this distinction is that in a merger of two subordinate bodies within the same parent organization, the impact on the membership is minimal - they would remain as members of the same national or international union under the same constitutional framework. On the other hand, in an inter-union merger, the membership would be introduced to an entirely new organization with a different constitution and way of operating. The United Brotherhood argues that no amendments should be made to Section 150.

Research
The result of a number of Board decisions on this issue has been that where a parent body's constitution requires the approval of the General President to a merger and such approval is not forthcoming, the Board cannot approve the merger even if a majority of the affected employees support such an outcome. This is in spite of the fact that the Board has generally recognized the right of employees, in certain circumstances, to make choices with regard to union local mergers.

In British Columbia Transit, BCLRB No. B499/98, the Board stated in connection with a Section 37 application: "The choice of trade union representation is the property of the employees affected. While this purpose is not absolute, the free choice of employees is to be accorded weight in the interpretation of other sections of the Code."

Discussion
It would be consistent with the general framework of the Code that mergers of union locals be decided through a democratic process by the employees affected. Where an international or national union has the ability to prohibit a merger that entity is effectively taking away the employees right to choose.

In our view, the Board's primary concern in examining union local mergers should be whether the decision to merge was arrived at by a democratic process. The Board should not concern itself with whether an international or national union has approved that decision.

page 53
Report of the B.C. Labour Relations Code Review Committee, April 11, 2003

We also considered the circumstances in which a trusteeship might be imposed on a local union within B.C. by the national or international union. It is noteworthy that Paul Weiler, former Chair of the B.C. Labour Relations Board commenting on his experience as Chair stated:
>From that experience I would single out two areas as requiring legislative attention: one is the imposition (even more, the maintenance) of trusteeships on local unions, often through decisions made outside the province.
(From a paper titled 'The Process of Reforming Labour Law in British Columbia', The British Columbia Labour Code in the 1980's, Carswell: Vancouver, 1984)

Since Weiler's comments, amendments have been made to the Code (Sections 10 and 150) dealing peripherally with trusteeships, however, the Code has not addressed any standard for the imposition of a trusteeship on a local union. This differs from the approach used in Ontario, which prevents a parent trade union from assuming supervision or control of a local without just cause.

We support the idea that there should be some standard that would apply to the imposition of trusteeships.