CITATION: College Employer Council v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2016 ONSC 7768
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 308/16 DATE: 20161209
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
MOLLOY, DAMBROT and RAMSAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE EMPLOYER COUNCIL
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION and ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents
Frank Cesario and Wallace Kenny, for the Applicant
David Wright and Richard Blair, for the Respondent Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Leonard Marvy, for the Respondent Ontario Labour Relations Board
HEARD at Toronto: December 9, 2016
MOLLOY J. (Orally)
[1] The decision of the Board involved the interpretation of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 within the context of a certification vote of part-time employees at Ontario community colleges. The Board was required to determine which employees would be “substantially effected” by the result of the vote and whether the employee group was “substantially representative” of those employees at the time of the vote.
[2] This was a fluctuating work force with students being 46% of the group in the school term and only 26% during the summer recess. The Board was required to balance these factors with the desirability of having the vote conducted in a timely manner.
[3] These are issues that could not be more central to the specialized expertise of the Labour Board. The decision involved interpretation of a home statute and application of labour relations principles.
[4] Mr. Cesario for the Council presents a compelling argument in support of the interpretation of these provisions he urges upon us and the outcome he suggests is the only reasonable one. We agree that this is one reasonable interpretation and outcome. However, it is not the only possible reasonable interpretation.
[5] In our view, the Board in this case applied a reasonable interpretation of the provisions in question and reached a reasonable result. It is one reasonable outcome within a range of possible reasonable outcomes. Deference is owed. We see no basis to interfere.
costs
[6] I have endorsed the Application Record of the Applicant as follows: “This application is dismissed for oral reasons given. The parties agree that $5,000 is an appropriate quantum for costs. The OLRB does not seek costs and none are sought against it. Costs to the respondent OPSEU fixed at $5,000 payable by the Council.”
___________________________ MOLLOY J.
I agree
DAMBROT J.
I agree
RAMSAY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 9, 2016
Date of Release: December 21, 2016
CITATION: College Employer Council v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2016 ONSC 7768
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 308/16 DATE: 20161209
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MOLLOY, DAMBROT and RAMSAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE EMPLOYER COUNCIL
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION and ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MOLLOY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 9, 2016
Date of Release: December 21, 2016