Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 153 v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada
3210-99-U Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 153, Applicant v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada and The Salvation Army Community Living at London, Ontario, Responding Parties v. Event Security & Investigation Specialists Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Kate Hughes, Tim Gleason, Carol Warner, Diana Smith, Larry Smith and Sandra Wilkins for the applicant; Chris White, Bev Hamilton and Beth Traynor for the responding party; Renato M. Gasparotto for the intervenor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 2, 2000
This is an application filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (the “Act”) by the applicant (the “union”) alleging violations of sections 70, 72 and 76 by the responding employer (the “employer”).
The employer operates community living programs in London.
A collective bargaining relationship exists between the union and the employer. They have been in the process of negotiating a collective agreement since September 1999. They have not reached an agreement. The employees in the bargaining unit have been on strike since December 14, 1999.
On February 17, 2000 the employer requested the Minister of Labour to order a final offer vote pursuant to section 42 of the Act. The Minister directed that a final offer vote be held. That vote is to be held on Friday, March 3, 2000.
The applicant has requested the Board to grant certain immediate relief in advance of the vote. The relief sought relates to a part of the section 96 complaint. The union wants the Board to issue a declaration that unfair labour practices have been committed by the employer and order that a notice to that effect be posted and mailed to employees, parents and guardians of the employer’s clients. In addition, the union requests that the Board issue an order directing the employer to cease and desist all intimidation and coercion with respect to the final offer vote and to enter into negotiations with the union and bargain in good faith.
At the hearing of this matter held on February 28, 2000 the Board heard limited evidence concerning certain aspects of this application. This evidence relates primarily to statements made to third parties by or through the employer relating to consequences of a “no” vote. The union only seeks remedies as against the employer. Whether that pre-vote conduct in the context of this application as a whole amounts to an unfair labour practice as contemplated by the Act has to be assessed in relation to the totality of the evidence presented in the application.
Based on this limited evidence and submissions the union requests that the Board issue the orders as set out in paragraph 5. The employer requests that in regards to the evidence presented, that part of the application dealing with these matters should be dismissed.
Having regard to the evidence and written submissions presented, I am not prepared to grant either request at this time. There was one day of evidence and limited opportunity for the parties to provide enough evidence as to the totality of the bargaining context such as would allow me to grant either request on an expedited basis.
In relation to the upcoming vote, employees are advised that the Act protects the right of employees to vote as they wish free from intimidation and coercion. Employees should know that the Board assures that the ballots are secret, that everyone has a fair opportunity to vote and that only the final results will be known. All employees should know that they have a lawful right to accept or reject the contract. That is a decision for them to make and no one else.
The employer and the union are directed to make all reasonable efforts to bring paragraph 9 of this decision to the attention of employees prior to the holding of the vote.
I am seized.
This matter is directed to the Registrar in order to schedule dates for the continuation of the hearing.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board