Nova Scotia’s labour board has ruled that a worker’s failure to complete certain sections of a decertification application form does not prevent the matter from proceeding to a vote, dismissing a union’s preliminary objection based on technical deficiencies.
The board found that omissions in the application form constituted a defect in form rather than a jurisdictional failure, allowing the revocation process to continue.
The case involved an application filed by a worker at Quality Concrete seeking to revoke the certification of Labourers International Union of North America, Local 615. The union had been the bargaining agent since May 1998, and the most recent collective agreement expired June 30, 2025.
The worker filed the application on June 30, 2025, along with confidential personal statements from employees supporting the revocation. However, three sections of the application form were left blank: the detailed description of the bargaining unit, the choice between two statutory grounds for revocation, and a section for other relevant facts.
The union filed a reply objecting that the incomplete form could not be processed and that the board lacked jurisdiction to proceed. The union argued that section 7 of the form, which requires applicants to indicate whether they rely on inadequate union representation or loss of majority support, must be completed to establish a statutory basis for the application.
The union requested dismissal of the application and a six-month bar on any further revocation or displacement applications.
The employer opposed the dismissal, arguing the objection was overly technical and that the board’s role is to ascertain and give effect to the true wishes of employees. The employer noted that a majority of employees in the small bargaining unit had signed supporting statements.
The applicant, who was self-represented, responded via email stating: “I have read the union papers and it does apply to use as we are concrete drivers not labourers that is why we want the union dissolved.”
Board’s analysis
The board determined that statutory prerequisites for jurisdiction are imposed by the Trade Union Act itself, not by the text of the application form. The regulation requires that applications be made in a board-approved form and verified by statutory declaration, both of which were satisfied in this case.
“The omissions in Form 6 do not affect the Board’s jurisdiction,” the tribunal found, noting that the file documents made clear the proceeding was an application for revocation and that supporting statements expressed employee support for revoking the union’s bargaining rights.
The board concluded it could infer the application was based on loss of majority support, as there was no assertion that the union was not fulfilling its responsibilities. “The statutory preconditions do not require that the Applicant correctly cite ’29(b)’ in a box on a form,” the decision stated.
The board rejected the union’s reliance on a bolded note on the form stating that incomplete applications “will not be processed,” finding this was administrative guidance that does not determine jurisdiction.
Citing its rules of procedure, which state that substantial compliance is sufficient and that no proceeding will be held invalid by reason of a defect in form, the board found the essential elements were present: the correct form was used and sworn, the parties and bargaining relationship were identified, and a majority of employees filed supporting statements.
The board noted its decision was consistent with previous cases recognizing that while the board must ensure employee support is reliable, it should avoid an overly technical approach that would impair employees’ rights to have their wishes considered, particularly where applicants are self-represented.
Vote to proceed
The board also addressed the union’s alternative request for a hearing to confirm that the application and personal statements were made freely and voluntarily. The board found no concrete allegations or evidence of employer involvement or coercion, and noted that employees affirmed on their statements that they signed freely and voluntarily.
A vote was held on Aug. 14, 2025, and remains sealed. The board ordered that the vote be counted and that certification will be revoked or confirmed based on the results.
The union’s request for a six-month bar will be considered if necessary following the vote count.
See the original arbitration ruling here: (Plaintiff) v Labourers International Union of North America, Local 615, 2026 NSLB 1 (CanLII).
