1185-00-U Ontario Nurses’ Association, Applicant v. University Health Network [General, Western and Princess Margaret Site], Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 10, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) in which it is alleged that the responding party violated a number of provisions of the Act.
2The responding party requests that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing because, in its view, the application does not disclose a prima facie breach of the Act. In the alternative, the responding party argues that the Board should defer to the grievance and arbitration that procedure which applies to the parties.
3By decision dated August 28, 2000 the Board directed the applicant to respond to the responding parties’ requests, which the applicant has done. This decision deals with these two preliminary matters.
4This application arises out of the fact that the responding party apparently overpaid some of its employees who are represented by the applicant. The responding party insisted to have its money returned to it. The responding party advised the applicant that it intended to send a letter to each affected employee and the letter advised employees that the overpayment would be deducted into equal instalments from the employee’s next two pays. The applicant’s position was that the employer should permit employee’s a greater length of time to repay the monies so as to avoid financial hardship.
5On March 22, 2000 the employer sent the employees the letters. The next pay-day was March 30, 2000.
6During the week of March 22, 2000 the union met with the responding party and asked it to agree to a repayment schedule that was current to the issues so that there would be no financial hardship. The applicant alleges that the employer said “I’ll think about it”.
7On March 30, 2000 one half of the overpayment was removed from each employee’s paycheque. The union filed a number of grievances. In part, the union asserts that the payroll deductions updated section of the Employment Standards Act.
8The union met with the employer again. The employer advised that if employees had financial problems with the deductions they could see the employer, and on a case by case basis, a repayment schedule could be arranged.
9On April 13, 2000 the second deduction was made.
10The grievances now appear to be headed to arbitration.
Decision
11In our view the Board ought to adjourn these applications until after the parties have had a chance to proceed to arbitration with them. The issues do not neatly fall with any of the sections of the Act which are alleged to have been violated. Moreover, it appears that the main issue involves the Employment Standards Act and alleged breaches of the collective agreement which can be fully canvassed at arbitration. That is not to say that the applicant does not demonstrate a prima facie case for at least one of the sections which it claims has been violated, only that those issues are clearly subsidiary to the main dispute between the parties. If there is a labour relations purpose for it doing so, the Board is prepared to hear the application after the grievance and arbitration proceedings have been concluded.
12Accordingly this application is adjourned sine die, for a period not exceeding one year. Unless within that time either party requests that the Board proceed with the matter, it will be deemed terminated without any further notice to the parties.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board