Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. CLN Industries Inc.
1699-99-U; 1855-99-U Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (“BMWE”), Applicant v. CLN Industries Inc. (“CLN”), Responding Party.
3427-99-U CLN Industries Inc. (“CLN”), Applicant v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (“BMWE”), Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
APPEARANCES: Michael Church, David Brown, Ronald A. Bowden, Richard Phillips, John Rioux, Jack Chokan and Jan Kennedy for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (“BMWE”); J. Nusca for CLN Industries Ltd. (“CLN”).
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 18, 2000
- At the hearing into these matters, the Board made the following oral ruling:
Both this morning and previously, we have carefully reviewed the three applications that are before us. Several things strike us about the applications.
First, it is apparent that these negotiations have been characterized by personal conflict which is not directly related to the issues at bargaining which divide the parties.
Second, it is equally apparent that a hearing will, in all likelihood, make the situation worse if the pleadings and correspondence which has been put before the Board are any indication.
Third, it appears that the issues which separate the parties at collective bargaining can be overcome.
Fourth, both parties accuse the other of the same violation of the Act - failure to bargain in good faith. The primary remedy for such a violation is an order requiring the other party to return to the bargaining table and to bargain in good faith. With these thoughts and conclusion in mind, we have considered our role and obligations under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
Under section 96(4) of the Act, the Board has the discretion whether to inquire into a complaint of a contravention of the Act. Under the circumstances I have described, it is our view, after careful deliberation, that we ought not to inquire into these complaints at this time, as it would serve no labour relations purpose.
In fact, as noted, we are of the view that such an inquiry may be contrary to sound labour relations.
Accordingly, we are adjourning these hearings to dates which, if such hearings are necessary and appropriate, will be set by the Board. Both parties have a duty under section 17 of the Act to bargain in good faith. Having regard to the fact that each party, by definition, seeks the same remedy (among others) in their applications, we hereby direct the parties to, within three weeks of today’s date, meet and bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement.
These matters will not be rescheduled for hearing without the Board’s consent.
And that is our order.
- This decision confirms that ruling.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board