The union bargained a memo of agreement that expanded the scope clause to cover the removal of equipment to a new site. When the company lost the old equipment in a fire and established new lines at the second plant, the arbitrator found that the memo did not cover work, only equipment.
Following a fire that completely destroyed a boneless ham processing plant, the employer later set up a new ham-boning production line at another of its facilities. The union said its collective agreement with the employer covered the work on the new production line at the employer’s alternate facility.
In 2003, the union applied to certify a bargaining unit of all the employer’s workers in a particular county and the employees working at the employer’s Blast Freezing facility in an adjacent municipality.
The employer sought to exclude the workers from the Blast Freezing facility from the certificate. In 2004, the labour relations board issued an interim certificate covering the workers in the county. The issue of the workers at the Blast Freezing facility was sent back to the parties.
The first collective agreement between the parties in 2004 contained a Memorandum of Settlement that resolved all the outstanding issues between the parties with respect to the scope and description of the bargaining unit. The four-year agreement was renewed in September 2008.
The Memorandum of Settlement contained this clause: “If any of the ham boning production lines currently located at the Wellington plant are moved to the Canadian Blast Freezer facility in Trenton, then the Collective Agreement will cover that work and the employees performing that work.”
Plant destroyed by fire
In 2009, the Wellington plant was completely destroyed by fire. The business was closed and all the employees were permanently laid off. A January 2011 settlement addressed all issues with respect to recall rights, termination and severance pay.
In July 2011, the employer purchased and then installed a ham boning production line at its Blast Freezer facility. Eighteen workers were hired to work on the ham boning production line.
The union grieved. The union sought an order requiring the employer to abide by the collective agreement and a declaration that it was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the workers performing the ham boning work at the Blast Freezer facility.
The union argued that the clear purpose of the Memorandum of Settlement was to protect the union’s bargaining rights and secure the application of the collective agreement to the employer’s ham boning work in the event that it was moved to the Blast Freezer facility.
The reference to the “ham boning production lines” was not a reference to the line itself but to the process and function of the line or, in other words, the work, the union said.
The employer said the language of the collective agreement addressed what would happen if the employer moved any of its ham boning production lines from Wellington to the Blast Freezer facility. That did not happen. The line at the Blast Freezer facility was a new one that did not exist when the contract was ratified.
The employer did not violate the collective agreement, the Arbitrator said.
Clause “1” of the Memorandum of Settlement turned on a condition precedent that required the movement of the employer’s ham boning production lines from one facility to the other. That did not apply in this case.
The Arbitrator rejected the union’s argument that the collective agreement necessarily followed the ham boning work from one facility to the next.
Distinction drawn between work and production lines
The parties had made a distinction between “work” and “production lines.” If it was the intention of the parties to make the movement of the “work” the trigger for the application of the collective agreement, then the language would have said so, the Arbitrator said.
“Instead, the parties agreed to the phrase ‘current ham boning production lines,’ which suggests that the parties intend the phrase ‘production lines’ to have a meaning different and distinguishable from the work associated with the operation of ham boning production lines.”
The phrase “production lines” did not refer to the work performed on production lines, the Arbitrator said.
“[T]he phrase ‘production lines’ is a precise phrase that, in the context of Clause (1), means the physical arrangement of the machinery, equipment and assets owned by the employer and required for ham boning purposes.”
The condition precedent necessary to trigger the application of the collective agreement did not arise, the Arbitrator said. The ham boning production lines were not moved from the Wellington plant to the Blast Freezer facility.
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: Midtown Meats Ltd. and United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 175. George S. Monteith — Sole Arbitrator. Carl W. Peterson for the Employer. Natalie Wiley for the Union. April 2, 2012. 8 pp.
