Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 794 et al., 2000 CanLII 12004

Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 794

Parties

0053-00-PS Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 794; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 839, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 772; Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 70; Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 235; Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 206 and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 273, Responding Parties.

BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice Chair.

APPEARANCES: Robert Salisbury, Ted Capstick, Rod Carroll, Susan Smith and Peggy Goddard for the applicant; Nick Milanovic, Daria Ivanochke, Ulrich Venohr, Ron Poynter, Bill Ferguson, Jennifer Stewart and David Michor for CUPE Locals 794 and 839; Peter Yemen and Margaret Martin for IUOE Local 772; Jasbir Parmar and Marg Ducie for ONA Locals 70 and 235; David Wright and Pat Honsberger for OPSEU Locals 206 and 273.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 14, 2000

Decision

1. This is an application brought pursuant to sections 21, 22 and/or 23 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Act, 1997 (the "PSLRA"). The parties disagree as to the appropriate configuration of certain bargaining units following the merger of two preexisting hospitals to form the new Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation. Subject to that determination it will be necessary to hold certain votes in order to determine any bargaining agent for the newly configured bargaining units.

2. The parties filed submissions and a consultation was convened to deal with the broad issue of the bargaining unit configuration. At the conclusion of hearing the parties’ representations on that point, I adjourned to consider the matter. There is no dispute that full-time and part-time nurses will continue in a distinct bargaining unit covering the entire geographic scope of the newly formed hospital. Upon reconvening I ruled that there would be four bargaining units, broadly described as the nurses’ unit, the service and clerical unit, the technologists/technicians unit, and the maintenance unit. The parties were then directed to meet with the Labour Relations Officer in order to work out any and all issues regarding the precise descriptions of these bargaining units and the holding of the necessary votes. Those meetings will continue in September.

3. There is an outstanding issue between the employer and ONA regarding the appropriate description of the nurses’ bargaining unit. Some preliminary discussions were had with the panel and a process established whereby the parties will exchange certain information relevant to the dispute. A meeting with the Labour Relations Officer has been scheduled to be held following that exchange.

4. In determining bargaining unit configurations pursuant to the PSLRA the Board has looked to any existing status quo in addition to factors which the Board more regularly considers in a certification application. In this case the predecessor hospitals experienced quite different preexisting bargaining arrangements. Broadly speaking, at the Hamilton Civic sites the experience is predominantly a large and inclusive single bargaining unit structure with an additional small maintenance unit. At the Chedoke-McMaster sites, there are a number of smaller, more specific bargaining units. Both structures have been generally successful. In reconciling these bargaining configurations in the face of restructuring, issues of fragmentation compete with issues of this varied experience and representation. CUPE relies on arguments concerning mobility, jurisdiction, and accommodation, subsets of a fragmentation argument, in asserting a broader based configuration. The employer and the other trade unions seek a configuration of five bargaining units.

5. On balance, I was persuaded that issues of fragmentation were of less concern to a technologist/technician unit and the skilled trades, maintenance unit. However the same may not clearly be said for the clerical and service employee groupings. That is a grouping of employees that the Board would generally combine. In addition, those two groups of employees have bargained successfully together in the large unit currently represented by CUPE. While there are a large number of unrepresented clerical employees, they represent, based on the employer’s numbers, only about 17% of the clerical and service employee group. While they represent a larger percentage of simply the clerical employees, I was not persuaded that it would be appropriate to fragment the bargaining unit structure to the extent of identifying a separate bargaining unit for clerical employees on the basis of that fact alone.

6. The parties have scheduled dates to meet with the Labour Relations Officer in order to attempt to determine any and all issues necessary for the holding of the votes. Should the employer, CUPE, OPSEU and IUOE fail to reach agreement on any matter, a consultation is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, November 7, 2000 at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, "Board Room", 2^nd floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario commencing at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of consulting with the parties with respect to any dispute relevant to the holding of any vote in this matter.

7. Should ONA and the employer be unable to resolve their dispute as to the precise description of the nursing bargaining unit, a consultation is hereby scheduled for Monday, November 27, 2000 at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, "Board Room", 2^nd floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario commencing at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of consulting with the employer and ONA with respect to that dispute.

8. This panel is seized.

"M. Nairn"

for the Board