Ontario Labour Relations Board
2006-01-R The Employees of the Village of Riverside Glen, Applicants v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 175, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 30, 2001
1This is an application for termination pursuant to section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
2The application date is October 19, 2001. The responding party (“the union”) objects that the application is not timely. The union was certified as the bargaining agent for the affected employees on October 16, 2000. It gave the employer written notice of its desire to bargain with a view to making a collective agreement on or about October 26, 2000. On December 14, 2000, the union requested the appointment of a conciliation officer. On or about September 25, 2001, the Minister of Labour released to the parties the report of the conciliation officer noting that the union and employer had been unable to effect a collective agreement. As of October 23, 2001, the union and employer were unable to effect a collective agreement.
3The union makes two assertions with respect to timeliness. It states that the application is untimely under section 67(1)(a) of the Act. This provision provides that an application for termination cannot be brought until 30 days have elapsed from the release by the Minister of a report of the conciliation board or mediator.
4The union also asserts that the application is untimely by virtue of section 12 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (“HLDAA”), which provides that an application for termination must be made in accordance with the provisions of subsection 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and can therefore only be brought within an open period of a collective agreement that has been concluded following notice to bargain under section 16 of the Act. The union submits that the instant application is not brought within such an open period. The union also alleges improper involvement by the employer in respect of the application for termination.
5On October 24, 2001, the Board directed the applicants to reply to the union’s submissions regarding timeliness by no later than October 26, 2001. The deadline was subsequently extended to October 29, 2001. The reply filed by the applicants does not address the issue of timeliness. Instead, the applicants state that the proper forms have been filed with the Board, and go on to address the allegations of employer involvement. The applicants do not explain how their application comes within an open period for termination applications under HLDAA or the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
6The Board has received a letter from the solicitors for the employer, dated October 26, 2001. The employer rejects the allegations of improper involvement in the application. However, the employer agrees that the application is untimely, relying on subsection 67(1)(a) of the Act. The employer does not address the applicability of HLDAA.
7The Board finds that the application is untimely. It appears that section 12 of HLDAA applies to the instant facts and that an application for termination must therefore be brought within an open period specified in subsection 63(2), and in accordance with HLDAA.
8The application is dismissed. It is not necessary for the Board to deal with the allegations regarding the employer’s involvement in the application.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board