Kees W. Kort

The applicants and responding unions made an application under section 27 of the Public Service Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to resolve a dispute regarding which collective agreements apply to the bargaining units.

During the consultation, a significant material fact was found to be in dispute.

The parties agreed to meet and attempt to reach an agreement on the relevant facts.

The Board adjourned the consultation to allow the parties to continue their discussions.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification seeking to represent service employees at the Trenton Memorial Hospital site of the Quinte Healthcare Corporation.

The responding hospital and the incumbent union argued the applications were barred by an agreement made under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 (PSLRTA) following a hospital amalgamation.

The Board found that the incumbent union, acting as the bargaining agent for multiple existing bargaining units, could validly enter into a section 20(2) PSLRTA agreement with the employer to consolidate the units.

As a valid agreement was in effect prior to the application date, the applications were barred and dismissed without a representation vote.

The applicant, North Simcoe Hospital Alliance, sought a declaration under section 9 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act that the Act applied to it as a result of a merger of operations between Penetanguishene General Hospital and Huronia District Hospital.

The responding unions argued the Alliance was not an employer and that the merger events occurred prior to the transitional period.

The Board found the Alliance was a partnership and an employer under the Act.

The Board also held that while the merger was planned prior to the transitional period, the actual implementation of key merger decisions occurred during the transitional period, satisfying the requirements of section 9(1)(a).

The Board declared that the Act applied.

The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units appropriate for its operations following the amalgamation of two predecessor school boards.

The applicant sought five separate bargaining units, while CUPE sought an 'all employee' unit.

The Board determined that an 'all employee' bargaining unit was appropriate, noting the history of such a unit at one of the predecessor boards and the lack of labour relations problems.

The Board also ordered a representation vote.

The applicant requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal hold its proceedings in abeyance pending the decision of an interest Board of Arbitration.

The applicant argued the arbitration decision would significantly impact its pay equity application.

The respondent opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer its proceedings, finding that the interest arbitration did not address the same issues, particularly whether the parties were implementing their current amended pay equity plan in accordance with its terms.

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of an unfair labour practice complaint hearing because its key witness, a lawyer involved in related proceedings, was unavailable.

The Board noted that the witness had not been summonsed by the respondent and chose to attend another proceeding.

However, the Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the respondent undertake not to take any reprisals against employees summonsed by the union to attend Board proceedings, and that it remove any disciplinary action already taken against the grievors.

The Board also directed the respondent to post copies of the decision in the workplace.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board assessed whether the petitions signed by employees represented their voluntary wishes.

The Board found that the active involvement of the general manager's wife in the origination and circulation of the petitions would have led employees to reasonably perceive that management had a vested interest in the termination of bargaining rights and would be aware of who signed.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petitions were not voluntary and dismissed the application.