Group of Employees v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220 and Grand River Hospital Corporation
File No.: 3488-99-U Date: August 15, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Before: R. O. MacDowell, Chair.
Appearances: Terry Ligtenberg, Wayne Quinn, Hana Sonnenfeld and Luis Brilhante for the group of employees; Elizabeth Traicus for SEIU; Rusty McLay, Franca Hoda, John Cox and Randy Esford for the Grand River Hospital; Lisa Kelly for CAW-Canada.
Decision of the Board
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act (“the Act”) alleging that the respondents have contravened various provisions of the Act. The details of those allegations need not be set out here. It suffices to say that the case, if litigated, may involve a number of legal issues and various statutes that might be arguably relevant to the ultimate disposition of the matter. Moreover, since the complaint was filed, the CAW has replaced the SEIU as the bargaining agent for employees at the Grand River Hospital Corporation (including the complainants), and this too may affect the outcome. The institutional setting is quite different from what it was when the complaint was filed.
2A pre-hearing conference was held, in Toronto, on August 10, 2000. It was agreed that the CAW now has an interest in the outcome of the case, and that it would be desirable for all of the parties to engage in further discussion, to see if it was possible to settle or simplify the matters in dispute. On the other hand, it was also agreed that if this could not be done relatively soon, the matter should proceed in the ordinary course – which, in this case, means receiving the responding parties’ submissions on what are said to be “preliminary issues” (primarily that the complainants’ allegations do not make out a prima facie case for the relief requested, and, in any event, that the Board, as a matter of discretion, should not inquire into the complainants’ allegations).
3Having regard to the representations of the parties, the Board directs that the CAW be added as a party intervener. The CAW will have until September 15, 2000 to record its position, and to make written submissions on the issues identified in the material now before the Board (including those characterized as “preliminary” by the employer and the SEIU). A copy of the CAW’s submissions must be provided to the other parties at the same time that they are filed with the Board.
4The other parties will then have until Monday, September 25, 2000, to make any further representations. Those representations, likewise, must be provided to all the parties and to the Board.
5The complainants are directed, in particular, to clearly identify for the Board the remedies which they now seek, in light of the circumstances that now exist. I emphasize the word “now”, because, as I have already noted, the legal and institutional landscape may have changed with the departure of the SEIU, and its replacement by the CAW.
6Following receipt of these submissions, the Board will make such determination or schedule such hearing or consultation as appears appropriate on the basis of the material then before it.
7If the matter is to proceed to a hearing or consultation, the first “order of business” will be to receive the responding parties’ assertion that the complainants do not make out an arguable case for the relief requested, or, in the alternative, that the Board should exercise its discretion not to inquire into the complaint, or not to give the remedies sought.
8As I indicated to the parties on August 10, 2000: I am not “formally seized” of this case, so the matter will not necessarily come back on before me. So it is important that the parties clearly set out their positions, in writing, prior to any adjudication by the Board.
9Finally, while it is perhaps unnecessary to do so, let me observe that litigation is a time-consuming, expensive, frustrating, and often imperfect method of resolving labour relations disputes. It complicates ongoing collective-bargaining relationships – not least because the outcome is frequently uncertain. Accordingly, the parties are encouraged to continue their exploration of the outstanding issues and their efforts to resolve them without formal adjudication.
“R. O. MacDowell”
for the Board