[1994] OLRB Rep May 592
4506-93-JD Electrical Power Systems Construction Association and Ontario Hydro, Applicants v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000, Responding Parties
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Alternate Chair, and Board Members F. B. Reaume and J. Redshaw.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 11, 1994
1These are jurisdictional dispute proceedings brought under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act. In each case the Board is asked to decide which of the union parties should be assigned to perform certain work.
2These applications are part of a much broader dispute about the way in which work is assigned by Ontario Hydro. That dispute is extensive and escalating. Indeed, the Board has been advised that there may be as many as 200 (or more) similar work claims, involving different craft unions and different bodies of work. Quite a number of such applications have already been filed; and the Board has been informed that there are many more to come. And, of course, under the Rules, each new application generates onerous and expensive pleading obligations - whether or not the case ultimately proceeds to litigation.
3This dispute is unique in a variety of ways, including: the number of identity of the parties involved; the provincial scope of Hydro's operations; the nature of the issues (some of which may involve "constitutional questions"); the sheer magnitude of the potential litigation; and the potential cost to the parties and the public.
4It is not obvious to the Board that this dispute can, or should be, resolved by piecemeal litigation of individual applications, or that the normal hearing/consultation format is the most appropriate one. In the circumstances, if there is to be litigation, it is not obvious that the timetable should be governed by the vagaries of filing. Nor is it apparent that the existing Rules are well suited to handle a dispute of this dimensions. The Board is also aware that if the litigation commences and continues, the Board's own Rules and Procedures, will probably become a "tactical" weapon to be used by one party or the other to advance its interests.
5In the circumstances, the Board has decided that it should review the general situation with a view to constructing a more economical, expeditious, and perhaps global resolution of the dispute. In the meantime (and pursuant to Rule 22) the Board will relieve responding parties from strict compliance with the Rules respecting Replies, and will neither process nor schedule for hearing/consultation new applications filed after this date. Similarly, the Board will adjourn related proceedings (for example applications under section 126 of the Act) which appear to be part or an aspect of the same general dispute.
6Unless the parties are able to compose their differences, it may well be necessary to litigate some number of these applications. But until the Board has had an opportunity to review the situation and consider the best disposition of its own hearing resources, there will be a brief "moratorium".
7When the Board has completed its review, the parties will be so advised.
8In the course of that review, the parties or their counsel may be invited to make submissions on particular cases, issues, or dispute settlement mechanisms.