Service Employees Union v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation and Service Master of Canada Limited, 2000 CanLII 11969

Service Employees Union v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation and Service Master of Canada Limited

Parties and File Numbers

0590-00-R Service Employees Union, Applicant v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation and Service Master of Canada Limited, Responding Parties.

0592-00-M Service Employees Union, Applicant v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation and Service Master of Canada Limited, Responding Parties.

0593-00-U Service Employees Union, Applicant v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation and Service Master of Canada Limited, Responding Parties.

BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair and Board Members, J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 20, 2000

Decision

1. By decision dated July 5, 2000, the Board directed the applicant to file submissions concerning a preliminary objection by the responding party Quinte Healthcare Corporation (“Quinte”) in Board File Nos. 0590-00-R and 0593-00-U. Quinte alleged that the applicant took a position in proceedings under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 (“the PSLRTA”) that is at odds with the applicant’s position in its section 69/1(4) application and unfair labour practice complaint under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1.

2. This application is in respect of certain housekeeping employees who worked at one time at Quinte and one of the predecessor hospitals of Quinte, Trenton Memorial Hospital (“Trenton”). It would appear that their services were acquired through a contract between Trenton and the other responding party in this matter, Service Master of Canada Limited (“Service Master”). It would appear further that at about the same time as that contract was entered into, Service Master and the applicant began a collective bargaining relationship in respect of the housekeeping employees at Trenton. Trenton’s service contract with Service Master was subsequently assumed by Quinte when it became the successor hospital to Trenton and other local hospitals. Quinte did not renew the service contract upon its expiry, which resulted in the issue of layoff notices by Service Master to the housekeeping employees.

3. The applicant filed its submissions as directed by the Board. The applicant denies that it is taking a contradictory position following the completion of the PSLRTA restructuring process involving Quinte and its trade unions, including the applicant. It denies that it previously took the position that the housekeeping employees who are the subject of these applications were not employees of Quinte. The applicant states that, in fact, its position from the beginning of the PSLRTA restructuring discussions was that the housekeeping employees and Service Master should be allowed representation at such discussions. Moreover, the applicant maintains that notwithstanding its involvement in the PSLRTA restructuring process, it advised Quinte throughout that it considered the housekeeping employees in question to be employees of Quinte for labour relations purposes, and further, that if need be, the issue would be referred by the applicant to the Board for a determination.

4. Having regard to Quinte’s assertions in its filed response, and the written submissions filed by the applicant in reply, it is apparent that there are material facts in dispute concerning the issues raised by Quinte. It is appropriate that the panel of the Board assigned to hear this matter deal with these factual disputes in the event that it wishes to entertain Quinte’s preliminary motion.

5. This matter is referred to the Registrar.

6. I am not seized.

“Patrick Kelly”

for the Board