Group of Employees v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220 and Grand River Hospital Corporation
File No.: 3488-99-U Date: May 31, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Applicant: Group of Employees Responding Parties: Service Employees International Union, Local 220 and Grand River Hospital Corporation
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). The applicants allege that the Service Employees International Union, Local 220 (the SEIU) and the Grand River Hospital Corporation (the employer) have breached the Act in the manner in which they negotiated the merger of bargaining units and collective agreements, in the period from March 1999 to August 1999.
In a decision dated May 3, 2000, the Board narrowed the range of issues it would consider to the one set out above, and directed both the employer and the SEIU to file responses to that issue within 21 calendar days. Both complied.
Although both the SEIU and the employer responded to the issue requested by the Board, they have also raised a new one, created by recent events.
The Canadian Automakers Union (the CAW) filed an application for certification to seek to represent the employees in the bargaining unit of which the applicants are a part. A representation vote was held, and on May 2, 2000, the CAW was certified by the Board to represent the employees. To put the matter simply, the SEIU which is the responding party in this case, no longer represents the employees who are complaining about its conduct.
More particularly, the employer points out in its submissions to the Board, that at no time in the CAW’s application for certification have the applicants in this case raised any issue about the description of the combined part-time service bargaining unit. Further, counsel for the employer noted that the Board found the bargaining unit to be appropriate for collective bargaining.
Although counsel for the SEIU and counsel for the employer have characterized their submissions differently, they each assert that this application should be dismissed because the issue is moot and no labour relations purpose would be served by inquiring further.
They submit that since the SEIU is no longer the bargaining agent, no effective remedies are available, and in any event, as part of the CAW’s certification proceeding, the combined part-time service bargaining unit has been found to be appropriate for collective bargaining without any complaint by the applicants. And, finally, counsel for the employer pointed out, the collective agreement that the applicants complain about is at an end.
Counsel for the SEIU and the employer have raised some important legal and practical issues. Before the Board considers whether or not to dismiss this application, the applicants should be given an opportunity to make submissions.
Any submissions must be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Board within 21 calendar days of the date of this decision.
The Registrar is directed to forward the submissions to this panel of the Board, if practical.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board