Canadian Health Care Workers (C.H.C.W.) v. The Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada
2090-99-R Canadian Health Care Workers (C.H.C.W.), Applicant v. The Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union Local 220, Intervenor
2224-99-U Canadian Health Care Workers (C.H.C.W.), Applicant v. Service Employees International Union and Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Responding Parties v. The Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. .Patterson.
APPEARANCES: Joanne McMahon, Joe Daignault and Mike Groom for the applicant;
Stephen Kraskinsky, Jim Pare and David Eales for the responding parties; Kristen Lopes and Shelley Stevenson for the intervenor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 31, 2000
Board File No. 2090-99-R is an application for certification filed pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). Board File No. 2224-99-U is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Act, alleging violations of sections 5 and 76 of the Act.
This matter came on for hearing on November 29, 1999. At the outset, counsel for the responding party (“SEIU”) made a preliminary motion, requesting the Board either to dismiss the applications on the basis that the applicant’s pleadings in Board File No. 2224-99-U failed to disclose a prima facie violation of sections 5 and 76 of the Act; or to not inquire further into the file on the basis that it would serve no good labour relations purpose to do so.
The parties agreed that the Board should deal with the preliminary motion before proceeding further.
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Board is of the view that in order to decide finally the motion, the Board requires further particulars of the applicant’s allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Schedule A of its application in Board File 2224-99-U. It was argued by counsel for the applicant that the allegations contained in this paragraph of the applicant’s pleadings distinguished the present case
factually and significantly from that in Grand River Hospital Corporation (unreported decision of the Board of September 12, 1997: Board Files 1019-97-R; 1020-97-R; 1228-97-U), where the Board, differently constituted, dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint involving the same parties in a displacement application. For convenience, we set out below the full text of paragraph 19:
Additionally, officials of SEIU and their representatives have accused Joe Daignault of committing theft, and specifically of taking members funds from SEIU which resulted in his termination from that union. When confronted with evidence in the form of Mr. Daignault’s resignation letter, SEIU first alleged that the letter was a forgery, and then backtracked and indicated that Mr. Daignault had been permitted to resign. These are serious, unfounded and defamatory allegations that may, of necessity, subsequently be dealt with in the civil courts. However, SEIU must be precluded from behaving in such an inappropriate manner in the labour relations arena. CHCW is seeking relief in this forum to that effect.
The Board directs the applicant to provide particulars of the allegations contained in paragraph 19, including the names of the SEIU representatives and officials alleged to have made the accusations concerning Mr. Daignault, the form those accusations took (oral or written), when and where the accusations were alleged to have been made, and to whom. The applicant is also directed to provide particulars concerning paragraph 19’s reference to the confrontation that took place in which SEIU is alleged to have claimed that the resignation letter was a forgery; the applicant is to include details concerning when and where that confrontation took place, the name or names of the person or persons who it is alleged confronted SEIU, as well as the name or names of the SEIU representatives and/or officials to whose attention the resignation letter was allegedly brought and who claimed the letter was a forgery, and who later claimed that Mr. Daignault had been permitted to resign. The applicant is to provide the particulars to the Board and to counsel for SEIU on or before February 11, 2000. Counsel for SEIU is to provide its response to the Board and counsel for the applicant on or before February 22, 2000.
6 Following review of the particulars and the response to same, the Board shall issue its decision on the motion. The Board may decide to conduct a full hearing in the matter, or confine a hearing to evidence and submissions concerning the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Schedule A of the applicant’s application, or dismiss the matter without a hearing.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board