Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1984] OLRB Rep. December 1681
2295-84-R Ballycliffe Lodge Limited, Applicant, v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario, Respondent
BEFORE: Ian C. Springate, Alternate Chairman, and Board Members I. M. Stamp and P.
V. Grasso.
APPEARANCES: Michael Gordon, Thomas Stefanik, John Newton, Ivan Irwin and Rowena Kerr for the applicant; Leslie M. McIntosh for the respondent; Naomi Duguid, Doug Anderson and Dorothy Kent for Service Employees International Union, Local 204; Barry H. Bresner and Robert Butler for Medox Health Care Services, a division of Drake International Inc.; Peter J. Thorup and Valerie Owen for Valmed Health Services Inc.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 21, 1984
Decision
1The name of the respondent in the style of cause of this application is amended to read: "Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario".
2This is an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act in which the applicant seeks a declaration that it is under the direction and control of the Crown in Right of Ontario (the "Crown") and that the applicant and the Crown are related employers for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant further seeks a declaration that the Crown is bound by a collective agreement entered into between the applicant and Service Employees International Union, Local 204.
3The Crown challenges the jurisdiction of the Board to deal with this application, contending that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown. In support of this position the Crown relies on section 11 of the Interpretation Act which states:
No Act affects the rights of Her Majesty, Her heirs or successors, unless it is expressly stated therein that Her Majesty is bound thereby.
There is no such statement in the Labour Relations Act.
4Having regard to the provisions of section 11 of the Interpretation Act, we are satisfied that the Labour Relations Act is not binding on the Crown. It follows that this Board has no jurisdiction to either find the Crown to be a related employer with the applicant under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or to declare the Crown to be bound by a collective agreement. Accordingly, these proceedings are hereby terminated.
5At the hearing into this matter counsel for Ballycliffe Lodge Limited indicated that the firm might take the position that it is an agent of the Crown, and accordingly not bound by the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. In that such a contention would go to the Board's jurisdiction to make findings and orders affecting Ballycliffe Lodge Limited, the Board is prepared to inquire into the issue. The Board will do so, however, only after the completion of the matters raised in Files 1909-83-U, 1913-83-U and 2374-84-R. If, with respect to those matters, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to make some finding or order affecting Ballycliffe Lodge Limited, then the Board will entertain an argument by Ballycliffe Lodge Limited that it is an agent of the Crown.