Office and Professional Employees International Union v. Union Du Canada Assurance - Vie
[1982] OLRB Rep. October 1576
2531-81-U Office and Professional Employees International Union, Complainant, v. Union Du Canada Assurance - Vie, Respondent
BEFORE: M. G. Picher, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and S. Cooke.
APPEARANCES: Cathy Lace for the applicant; R. E. Shibley, Q. C., for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 14, 1982
1On April 27, 1982 the Board issued a remedial order in this complaint. Counsel for the union subsequently requested that reasons be given in writing. Counsel for the employer submits that the Board is under no legal obligation to give written reasons or, alternatively, that the labour relations of the parties will not be served by an extensive elaboration of the allegations, and evidence heard by the Board. It is common ground that the Board's order was immediately implemented and that it resulted in the prompt execution of a collective agreement between the parties. The agreement has been administered for close to six months in a positive and harmonious atmosphere.
2Section 17 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980 c.484, provides:
A tribunal shall give its final decision and order, if any, in any proceedings in writing and shall give reasons in writing therefor if requested by a party.
3In our view that section leaves the Board no discretion. It must provide reasons in writing when requested by a party to the proceedings before it. That is part of the concept of natural justice and fairness which underlies the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. We cannot accept the submission of counsel for the respondent that the obligation to provide written reasons when requested is triggered only when judicial review proceedings have been initiated against the Board.
4That is not to say, however, that the Board is without discretion in the extent or the tone of reasons which it will write in a given case. Litigation is a means and not an end. The Board must always be mindful, like any tribunal, that it is primarily a problem-solving agency, devoted to resolving and quieting disputes. That is particularly important in the field of labour relations where parties and personalities are not involved in a one-time encounter, as often occurs in civil litigation, but must generally live together in an ongoing relationship. In that context the Board must tailor its reasons to the realities of the case before it. In some instances the dispute before the Board may require elaborate reasons couched in strong, unequivocal language. In other cases the remedial end will be better served by the rendering of the Board's findings, with the briefest analysis of the facts and a minimum of comment. The choice of approach must be made by the Board with some care, having regard to the particular case before it.
5In the instant case it is undisputed that the Board's order led to the termination of a protracted and bitter strike whose effect was felt throughout the francophone community in Ottawa. The evidence before the Board established a tragic breakdown in personal and employment relations of many years' standing, including bitter personal conflicts extending to persons both inside and outside the respondent company. It is undisputed that within days of the Board's order of April 27, 1982, the respondent implemented the Board's order to the full satisfaction of the union and concluded a collective agreement that returned its employees to work in an atmosphere of remarkably positive employer-employee relations. In these circumstances, the Board's order having fulfilled its purpose, we see little value in a protracted recital of the evidence that will vividly recall to the parties events that are best put behind them. We accept the submission of counsel for the union that the public interest is served in building the Board's jurisprudence for the future guidance of the labour relations community; that is especially true in cases of first impression or where some aspect of the evidence is of precedential interest. Where, as in this case, those elements are not present, the reasons for a Board decision can be considerably less elaborate without any cost to the jurisprudence or to the community. In any event, in communicating its reasons the Board must always be mindful of balancing the interests of enlightening the labour relations community with the immediate concern of the parties to the dispute to obtain the most constructive outcome.
6With the foregoing considerations in mind the Board gives the following as reasons for its remedial order:
a) On the evidence before it the Board concluded that the officers of the company believed that if the union could be prevented for the period of one year from certification from making a collective agreement the union's bargaining rights would lapse automatically. On that basis, once the employees opted to strike, the company formulated the intention, reflected in the evidence of a number of witnesses from the ranks of management, to not make any collective agreement, thereby allowing the union's bargaining rights to lapse. That was a controlling motive in its decision to withdraw its offer to the union in December of 1981, when it had reason to believe that the offer might be accepted. By that intention and action the respondent violated section 15 of the Act. That finding and the consequences of the respondent's actions and the reasons for the remedial order in paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the decision of April 27, 1982.
b) It became apparent during the course of the hearing that certain employees who had applied unconditionally to return to work under section 73 of the Act had, without credible excuse, been denied reinstatement to their jobs within a reasonable period of time while employees hired during the strike were retained. That constitutes a violation of section 73(1) of the Act and is the reason for the reinstatement order in paragraph 4 of the Board's order of April 27, 1982.
c) The evidence of certain members of management subpoenaed by the union tended to support some aspects of the union's complaint respecting the company's intention not to make a collective agreement once the strike began. In subsequent testimony another officer of the company intimated, more out of ignorance than design, that those witnesses would be answerable to the company for their evidence before the Board. The Board had no alternative but to find in that statement a threat of reprisal against witnesses for evidence given in proceedings before it. That is a violation of section 80(2) of the Act and is the reason for the remedial order in paragraph 5 of the Board's decision.