The Professional Staff Association of the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth
[1982] OLRB Rep. May 674
2551-81-R The Professional Staff Association of the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth, Applicant, v. The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth, Respondent
BEFORE: R. D. Howe, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and H. Kobryn.
APPEARANCES: Stanley Simpson and David Lane for the applicant; David F. Howlett, Sylvio Mainville and Donald Trebilcock for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 3, 1982
This is an application for certification.
The applicant has not previously been found to be a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(p) of the Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, the applicant was afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument on the threshold question of whether the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Act. Having regard to all the evidence before it, the Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(l)(p) of the Act.
The parties have reached partial agrement with respect to the description of the bargaining unit. The language upon which they have agreed is:
"All Child Care and Social Work staff employed by the respondent in the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, students employed during the school vacation period, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week and persons represented by the Office and Professional Employees International Union, under a certificate dated March 15, 1982.
For purposes of clarity, it is understood and agreed that "supervisors" and "persons above the rank of supervisor" include team leaders, Public Relations Co-ordinator, Volunteer Co-ordinator, Special Projects Coordinator, Family Life Education Co-ordinator and Property Manager."
However, the applicant seeks to add the word "professional" after "Child Care and Social Work" so that the description (with the necessary grammatical changes) would read: "all Child Care, Social Work and professional staff of the respondent. . ." In support of the proposed addition, counsel for the applicant noted that the respondent presently employs a psychometrist who administers psychological tests but also exercises managerial functions. It was common ground between the parties that, at present, the psychometrist is properly excluded from the bargaining unit because of his managerial responsibilities. However, counsel suggested that in view of the backlog of psychological tests that need to be performed, it is quite possible that in the future the respondent might hire another psychometrist who would not exercise managerial functions but rather would devote all of his or her working hours to psychological testing. It was the applicant's submission that such person, and any similar "professional", should be included in the bargaining unit. It was also suggested that it is ''possible that a whole range of professionals may become involved in the care and welfare of children under Children's Aid."
The respondent agreed that a psychometrist who did not have managerial responsibilities would properly be included in the applicant's bargaining unit but contended that there was no need to add the word "professional" since such person would be included in the bargaining unit in any event since he or she would fall within the purview of the words "Child Care and Social Work staff'. That contention was disputed by counsel for the applicant who observed that the terms "Child Care" staff and "Social Work" staff are terms of art in the child care field, which have very specific meanings in that context. Thus, it was his submission that a "psychometrist" would generally be recognized as an occupational classification that was quite distinct from that of a "Child Care" worker or a "Social Worker". Counsel for the respondent also contended that the inclusion of the word "professional" could give rise to a considerable amount of future litigation between the parties.
In a recent case (Board File 2434-81-R) involving the present respondent, another panel of the Board, in a decision dated March 15, 1982, (unreported) certified the Office and Professional Employees International Union as the bargaining agent