Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 2696-97-U Date: November 7, 2000
Between: United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Metro Taxi Ltd. c.o.b. as Capital Taxi, Responding Party.
Before: Pamela A. Chapman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) alleging that the responding party has violated sections 70, 72, 76 and 86(2) of the Act.
2By decision dated April 7, 1999, the Board made a number of findings and issued certain orders. Following an application for judicial review, the Board issued a further decision, on April 25, 2000, amending one paragraph of the order.
3On September 28, 2000, the applicant wrote to the Board alleging that certain aspects of the Board’s orders had not been implemented, and in particular stating that the parties had been unable to negotiate a resolution to the issue of compensation for payment by the drivers of the lease rates found to be unlawful.
4It was the Board’s understanding that this correspondence had been delivered by the applicant to counsel for the responding party, which is required by Rule 33 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure.
5On October 12, 2000, the Board issued a decision making certain procedural directions relating to the matter raised by the applicant, requiring the responding party to provide certain information relating to the dispute over compensation and to state its position on the matters raised in the applicant’s correspondence, and appointing a Labour Relations Officer to assist the parties in negotiating a resolution to the dispute. No decision was made on the merits of the applicant’s remedial request and request for enforcement of the Board’s earlier decisions.
6On that same date, after the decision had issued, brief correspondence from counsel for the responding party, indicating that his client was out of the country and that he would respond to the union’s correspondence by October 16, 2000, was put before me. That letter was dated October 2, 2000, and it appears it was received at the Board by fax on that date. I do not know why it was not put before me earlier than October 12, 2000, but when I reviewed it I concluded there was no reason to alter my directions issued that date: the letter confirmed that the responding party was aware of the union’s request that the Board take action, and that it intended to respond to the matters raised by the union in its letter. Indeed, counsel for the responding party indicated that he would respond by October 16, 2000, and by the Board’s decision dated October 12, 2000 he was given until October 27, 2000 to write to the Board.
7By letters dated October 23 and 26, 2000, the responding party has expressed its concern over this sequence of events, and asked the Board to reconsider its procedural directions of October 12, 2000. I will not in this decision review all of what has been raised by the responding party, as both parties have that correspondence, but will attempt to respond to the substance of the responding party’s apparent concerns.
8The responding party alleges that the Board issued its decision of October 12, 2000 “without notice to the Company and without affording the Company an opportunity to respond to the Union’s submissions”, and asks “whether it is the Board’s policy to issue decisions without any confirmation or communication to affected parties that a request for an order has been made and that a decision may be made which may affect and/or prejudice their rights”.
9Suffice it to say that the Board does not have any particular procedure or rule concerning what consultation with the parties it will undertake before issuing procedural directions in any particular case, other than its general concern for procedural fairness. Each case is considered on its merits, in all of the circumstances, including the nature of the case, the nature of the request being made, the history of the proceedings and of course the need for expedition. In some matters, the Board may issue a whole range of directions to the parties before a case is scheduled or heard, perhaps without hearing from either party; in other cases, directions are made during the course of a hearing, when both parties have an opportunity to comment. Outside of hearings, the Board commonly issues directions on a whole variety of procedural matters, or rules on routine requests like extensions of filing dates, without soliciting comments from all parties. Indeed, a key motivation for the addition of Rule 33 when the rules were amended was to ensure that all parties were aware when one party made a request to the Board, without the Board having to send out copies of correspondence seeking comments.
10In the present case, the responding party was aware that the union was seeking some action by the Board, as it received the same correspondence as did the Board, and it did have an opportunity to make submissions on that request, given that the Board did not issue a decision for two weeks after the correspondence was received. More importantly, the Board did nothing more than issue directions to structure the management of this dispute, which is not only entirely within our power to govern our own procedure but relates specifically and flows directly from my earlier directions.
11In the decision dated April 7, 1999, the Board made the following order:
- (c) the parties are directed to negotiate the issue of compensation for overpayment, either in the context of bargaining for a first collective agreement, or with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer if so requested, and to make good faith efforts to find a resolution satisfactory to both parties. If the parties exhaust these efforts without reaching a solution, they are directed to write to the Board setting out their respective positions on the amount of compensation that should be paid, and the appropriate method and timing of such payments. The Board will then make whatever further rulings are required; (emphasis added)
12By that order, the responding party was already required to do exactly what it has been ordered to do by the further decision dated October 12, 2000: to set out its position on the amount of compensation that should be paid, and the method for and timing of such payments. There is no dispute that the parties have been unable to reach a negotiated solution to this issue, despite a significant passage of time since the Board’s first decision, so this requirement clearly comes into effect. By the decision of October 12, 2000 I have done nothing more than to confirm that direction, as well as requiring the responding party to provide the information which will clarify the amounts which are in issue, which aspect of my order they have chosen in any event to comply with.
13The responding party argues that to require them to state their position on the dispute will interfere with efforts to resolve the matter and encourage inflexibility in bargaining. The parties have had a lengthy period of time during which to resolve this issue, and it does not appear that they have made much, if any, progress in finding a compromise to the positions which are apparent in their correspondence to each other. Neither party has earlier sought the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, either with respect to this particular issue or the other problems arising from the Board’s order. The tone and contents of