Parties and Appearances
3344-99-R Christian Labour Association of Canada, Applicant v. St. Andrew’s Residence, Responding Party v. Service Employees’ Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
3345-99-R Christian Labour Association of Canada, Applicant v. St. Andrew’s Residence, Responding Party v. Service Employees’ Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 28, 2000
Decision
These are applications for certification in respect of 2 bargaining units of part-time and full-time employees (respectively) employed by the responding party. Bargaining rights are currently held, in both cases, by the intervenor.
As a consequence of the initial filings in these matters, an issue as to the timeliness of these applications arose. Consequently, the Board (differently constituted) directed the parties to make further written submissions. The Board has now reviewed those submissions.
It is unnecessary to set out all of the facts in elaborate detail.
The timeliness of certification applications in respect of employers, as the instant one, governed by the terms of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, is often not a simple matter to determine.
In the present case, the applicant relies upon a decision of an interest board of arbitration dated October, 1998 as the framework upon which the timeliness of the instant applications is premised.
It is also common ground, however, that that award has been quashed by the Divisional Court and remitted to a new board of arbitration for determination.
The applicant concedes that “if the decision of the Divisional Court is upheld, then the application is untimely….”
The applicant advises, however, that the employer has filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal the decision of the Divisional Court.
It further expresses the concern that if the decision of the interest board of arbitration is ultimately re-instated as a result of those proceedings, the applicant may be deprived of its opportunity to bring these applications during the open period which would have already passed by the time that determination is made. It is for that reason that the applicant says it has brought the present application and seeks to have a representation vote held and the ballot box sealed.
While there may be some, at least theoretical, merit to the applicant’s expressed concerns, the fact is that the interest arbitration award upon which it relies is currently of no legal effect and consequently, as the applicant effectively concedes, these applications are untimely.
In the event that the kind of scenario the applicant posits does indeed come to pass, the Board would certainly entertain a request to reconsider this decision which, if granted, might have the effect of preserving or reviving the application dates in these matters. The Board will, of course, deal with any such requests should they be made.
These applications are hereby dismissed as untimely.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board