Ontario Nurses' Association v. Hamilton Program For Schizophrenia Inc.
[1994] OLRB Rep. March 252
3779-93-R Ontario Nurses' Association, Applicant v. Hamilton Program For Schizophrenia Inc., Responding Party
BEFORE: Lee Shouldice, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and E. G. Theobald.
APPEARANCES: Sharon Faulds for the applicant; Mark Zega for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 24, 1994
The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: "Hamilton Program For Schizophrenia Inc."
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act.
This is an application for certification in which the parties through a Labour Relations Officer have reached agreement on all matters in dispute between them with the exception of the issue of the description of the bargaining unit.
The parties agreed to the following partial description of the bargaining unit:
All Registered and Graduate Nurses employed in the capacity of Case Managers by the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Inc. in the City of Hamilton, save and except the Business Administrator and persons above the rank of Business Administrator.
Clarity Note: For the purpose of clarity, the parties further agreed to the following exclusions:
Office and clerical staff, Community Support Workers, Research Assistants, Clinical Director, Director of Education, Attending Physicians and Psychiatrists.
It is the applicant's position that the bargaining unit be limited to Case Managers in the employ of the responding party who are Registered and Graduate Nurses. The responding party's position is that the bargaining unit should include all Case Managers employed by the responding party, irrespective of their qualifications. There are 5 individuals out of a total of 9 Case Managers who have Registered and Graduate Nurse status. The others have other qualifications such as graduate degrees in social work or occupational therapy.
On March 7, 1994, the Board held a hearing to entertain evidence and argument with respect to this issue. The Board heard the evidence of Dr. Peter Cook, the responding party's Executive Director. The representative of the applicant chose to call no evidence in support of the unit applied for, and did not cross-examine Dr. Cook on the vast bulk of his testimony. Accordingly, the only evidence before the Board is the largely unchallenged evidence of the responding party.
In our view, it is unnecessary to set out in great detail the evidence of Dr. Cook. It suffices to say that the evidence of Dr. Cook establishes that the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant would cause serious labour relations problems for the employer should it be accepted by the Board. In particular, we are concerned with the potential for fragmentation of the employer's work force. In this regard, we are of the opinion that the applicant's proposed unit does not satisfy the test described by the Board in Hospital for Sick Children, [1985] OLRB Rep. Feb. 266, at paragraph 23.
The evidence before the Board suggests that all Case Managers irrespective of their qualifications, have, for the past ten years, "bargained" collectively with the responding party in an informal manner without difficulty, and there is no reason to believe that they cannot continue to do so if represented by the applicant. On the basis of the evidence before us, we are of the view that it is appropriate for all Case Managers of the responding party to be included in the bargaining unit. Accordingly, we find the following bargaining unit to be an appropriate one for collective bargaining:
all employees of the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Inc. employed in the capacity of Case Manager, in the City of Hamilton, save and except the Business Administrator and persons above the rank of Business Administrator.
Clarity Note: For the purpose of clarity, office and clerical staff, Community Support Workers, Research Assistants, Clinical Director, Director of Education, Attending Physicians and Psychiatrists are excluded from the bargaining unit.
The Board has determined that the list of employees of the responding party for the purposes of the "count" is composed of nine employees.
In support of its application for certification, the applicant union filed documentary evidence in the form of membership application cards. The cards are signed by each employee concerned, and are supported by a duly completed Declaration Verifying Membership Evidence.
The Board is satisfied, on the basis of all the evidence before it, that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees of the responding party in the bargaining unit on February 3, 1994, the certification application date, had applied to become members of the applicant on or before that date.
A certificate will issue to the applicant.