Service Employees’ Union, Local 268 v. Canadian Red Cross Society (Ontario Zone), 2000 CanLII 12409

Service Employees’ Union, Local 268 v. Canadian Red Cross Society (Ontario Zone)

2494-99-R Service Employees’ Union, Local 268, Applicant v. Canadian Red Cross Society (Ontario Zone), Comcare Canada Ltd., The Victorian Order of Nurses and Community Care Access Centre of the District of Thunder Bay, Responding Parties.

BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.

IN ATTENDANCE: Andrea Bowker for the applicant; Donna D’Andrea for the Canadian Red Cross Society (Ontario Zone); Glen Christie for Comcare Canada Ltd.; Garth O’Neill for Community Care Access Centre of the District of Thunder Bay; Bob Edwards for the Victorian Order of Nurses; Lisa Kelly for the CAW.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 2, 2000

1This is an application filed pursuant to the provisions of section 69 and subsection 4(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act').

2A request for production of documents was made on behalf of the applicant in a letter from the applicant’s counsel dated July 20, 2000. One or more of the responding parties opposed the production request on various grounds. A telephone conference call (‘the conference’) took place on August 1, 2000 at which this issue was addressed. Other matters dealt with during the conference were the standing of the CAW-Canada and arrangements for the further conduct of this application.

3As regards the standing of the CAW-Canada, the arrangement reached during the conference is that counsel for the applicant and for the CAW-Canada will confer to endeavour to determine, by reference to their respective bargaining units, whether the bargaining rights of the CAW-Canada might be affected by this application. If so, the CAW-Canada will be granted intervenor status. At the hearing of the matter the issue will be re-visited to the extent necessary.

4As regards the applicant’s request for production, at the conference there were certain stipulations made by the parties and I issued certain directions. The stipulations were:

1. Other than the requests for pre-qualification and the requests for proposals, no policy or procedural manuals were issued by the Community Care Access Centre of the District of Thunder Bay (‘CCAC’) to the Canadian Red Cross (Ontario Zone) (‘the Red Cross’), the Victorian Order of Nurses (‘VON’) or Comcare Canada Ltd. (‘Comcare’) (together referred to as ‘the service providers’).

2. No bulletins are issued by the CCAC to the service providers.

3. None of the service providers has any sub-contracting arrangements.

4. Other than to the extent dealt with in documents already produced, there are no written requirements by the CCAC of the service providers as regards their staffing and their staffing levels.

5The directions I issued were the following:

1. CCAC should produce copies of the internal documents issued to its case managers concerning the quality and manner in which service is to be provided by the service providers.

2. CCAC should produce any written instructions by it to any one or more of the service providers as to the manner in which they must provide the service.

3. Each service provider should produce any policy manual or procedure which was developed by it in collaboration with the CCAC.

4. Counsel for the CCAC and for each service provider should clarify in writing as to whether communications between the CCAC and that service provider regarding homemaking services to clients are done only on standard forms, or not. If communications are made by a method other than the use of standard forms, the production implications thereof will be considered either in a further conference or at the next hearing.

5. CCAC should produce the standard forms it uses in relation to the service providers as regards client services.

6. Each service provider should produce the standard forms it uses when reporting to the CCAC regarding its client service.

7. CCAC will search to determine whether it has any written communications with any of the service providers concerning complaints as to the quality of service of any of the service providers and report on the outcome of that search. If any documents are found which fall under this category, their production may be the subject of further consideration.

8. In respect of the Service Agreements concluded between the CCAC and each of the service providers certain Schedules have not been produced on grounds of their confidentiality. Each service provider should produce the thus far undisclosed schedules in the following manner:

(i) Any financial details may be deleted;

(ii) Counsel for the applicant may attend at the offices of counsel for the service provider concerned and peruse the schedules;

(iii) The applicant’s counsel may take notes;

(iv) The applicant’s counsel may share her notes with any of her co-counsel;

(v) The applicant’s counsel may not otherwise disclose the information obtained from her perusal of the schedules, save that counsel may reasonably take instructions from the applicant on the implications of the information obtained.

6The Red Cross should produce a schedule of its employees who were laid off during about May 1999.

7Comcare should produce a schedule of the number of its employees and their job titles as of May 31, 1999, and a schedule of the number of its employees and their job titles, with the names of former Red Cross employees, as of November 18, 1999.

8The relevant period, other than as specified above, is January 1, 1998 until the date of the application, November 18, 1999.

9All documents to be produced, as directed, should be produced within 7 days of the date of this decision.

10The applicant may revive its production request in paragraph 8 of its counsel’s letter of July 20, 2000, should it be so advised.

11Assuming without finding that the Board has jurisdiction to make a costs order, the cost to the Red Cross occasioned by these directions may be raised at a later stage in the proceedings if its search for documents proves to be unnecessary.

12As regards the further proceedings in this matter, the parties resolved that the following preliminary matters only would be dealt with at the hearing scheduled for September 6 & 7, 2000:

1. The standing of the CAW-Canada (to the extent the issue has not been resolved).

2. The contention that the application discloses no prima facie case, alternatively that it is an abuse of process and should not be entertained by the Board.

3. The contention that the application should be dismissed or otherwise not entertained for reasons of delay.

4. The contention that the applicant is estopped from bringing this application.

5. Any production issues which remain unresolved.

13I am seized.

“Christopher J. Albertyn”

for the Board