Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1996] OLRB Rep. November/December 905
1935-96-R International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Applicant
v. Alarm Control Center Inc., Responding Party
BEFORE: Bran Herlich, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES: Pat Murphy Walter Brown, Sherri Lynch and Paul Allan for the applicant; Bob Wright and Victor Harding for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 5, 1996
This is an application for certification. A representation vote was held and the ballot box had been sealed. At the request and on the agreement of the parties, I dealt with an issue raised by the responding party employer who argued that most, though not all, of its employees are "full-time firefighters" within the meaning of the Fire Departments Act (the "FDA") to whom the Labour Relations Act. 1995 does not apply by virtue of section 3(e) thereof.
After hearing brief and largely uncontested evidence on the point, I heard the parties' submissions. retired to consider same and subsequently delivered the following oral ruling:
Even accepting much of the theory advanced by the employer, I am not persuaded that the employees in question are lull-time firefighters" within the meaning of the Fire Department Act
('FDA").
The issue is not simply whether the employees perform critical fire protection or fire prevention duties not provided in any other fashion by the relevant municipalities. That fact appears clear and undisputed. That does not, however, in and of itself, establish that the employees in question are full-time firefighters' within the meaning of the FDA.
Even assuming that the contract between the responding party employer and the municipalities is a contract specifically contemplated and authorized under section 207(31) of the Municipal Act, and even assuming that the phrase "in the fire department" (see the definition of 'full-time" firefighter in section I of the FDA) is to be read as potentially including persons not employed by the fire department. I am still not persuaded that the employees in question are "full-time firefighters" within the meaning of the FDA. To meet the terms of the definition, a person must be assigned exclusively to fire protection or fire prevention duties. While duties related Co the contract with the municipalities are given highest priority, it was not disputed that the employees in question are also responsible for monitoring lire alarms for private commercial and residential clients of the responding party employer, duties which are conceded not to fall within the meaning of fire protection of fire prevention under the FDA.
I am therefore not satisfied that the employees in question are assigned exclusively to fire protection or fire prevention duties within the meaning of the FDA. They are therefore not 'full-time firefighters" within the meaning of the FDA and are consequently, not, on that basis, excluded from the application of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
After this ruling was delivered, the parties met with a Labour Relations Officer to further discuss other issues remaining in dispute.
As a result of those discussions, the parties were able, with two exceptions, to determine which ballots ought to be counted. Unfortunately, the margin of difference between those who voted for and against the applicant was sufficiently narrow that it appears the Board will have to resolve the disputed status of the two individuals whose ballots have remained sealed.
After further meetings with the Labour Relations Officer and the Vice-Chair, the parties agreed to adjourn these matters to November 12, 1996, in the "Board Room", 6th Floor, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, at 9:30 am at which time they will be heard from day to day (excluding Fridays and holidays) until their conclusion. The parties were advised, understood and agreed that in order to accommodate their scheduling requests, this matter will, in all likelihood, be heard by a different Vice-Chair or panel of the Board.