1468-00-U Tina Rozich and Ann McNeil, Applicants v. Kirkland Lake Police Association and Police Association of Ontario, Responding Parties v. Corporation of the Town of Kirkland Lake, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 24, 2000
1This is an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The applicants were employees of the Corporation of the Town of Kirkland Lake.
2In response to the application, one of the responding parties, the Kirkland Lake Police Association disputes the jurisdiction of the Board. The other responding party, the Police Association of Ontario, asserts that it owes no section 74 duty to the applicants.
3The Board advised the applicants of the jurisdictional issue in its August 24, 2000 decision. Further submissions were then received from the responding parties. The applicants were directed to respond to the jurisdictional issue by decision dated October 10, 2000 which states at paragraph 6:
"The applicants are directed to provide their submissions on the issue of the Board's jurisdiction to hear this matter in response to the submissions of the responding parties and the intervenor."
4The applicants did provide submissions dated October 16, 2000. Their position is that they contacted a number of individuals at various government agencies and determined that the Board was the appropriate place for their complaint.
5In order for the Board to inquire into section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (the "Act") I must have jurisdiction to do so. The Act does not apply to "members of a police force within the meaning of the Police Services Act". Further, "a member of a police force" is defined as "... a police officer, and in the case of a municipal police force includes an employee who is not a police officer". The collective agreement provided by the applicants make reference to the Police Services Act.
6There is nothing in the applicants' October 16, 2000 submissions that disputes the position that their employment relations are governed by the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990. The substance of the submissions received on October 16, 2000 deal with the processes the applicants have undertaken to pursue their rights and further cite definitional sections of the Act. Although I have sympathy with the applicants' difficulty in ascertaining the proper forum for their dispute, they have not provided me with any basis for assuming jurisdiction in this application.
7This application is therefore dismissed.
"Marilyn Silverman"
for the Board