Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4705 v. City of Greater Sudbury
File No.: 3010-00-PS Date: May 4, 2001
Parties: Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4705, Applicant v. City of Greater Sudbury; Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 148; Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 527 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Responding Parties.
Before: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD
[1]. The City of Greater Sudbury (the “City”), on April 6, 2001, applied for reconsideration of the Board’s decision in this matter dated March 20, 2001. Unfortunately, I was not apprised of that application until the afternoon of May 2, 2001 and directed the Registrar’s office to process the applicant’s application for reconsideration at that time.
[2]. The City seeks, in effect, a clarification of the identity of the bargaining agent for its employees in the Pioneer Manor bargaining unit, and the bargaining agent for its employees in its office, clerical and technical inside unit and in its service and maintenance outside unit. The Board’s descriptions of the bargaining agents for those three units were based on the Board’s understanding of the identity of the bargaining agents that held bargaining rights for the employees of Pioneer Manor and for the employees of Sudbury prior to the amalgamation that became effective on January 1, 2001. Based on the material filed by the parties, the Board understood, incorrectly according to the City, that the applicant and CUPE and its Local 148 were bargaining agents for employees of Sudbury. It was not the Board’s intention to confer bargaining rights on an entity that had not held bargaining rights for employees of Sudbury or of Pioneer Manor prior to that date. Thus, it seems from the City’s request for reconsideration that it was CUPE, Local 148 and CUPE, Local 4705 that were the bargaining agents prior to the amalgamation and not the applicant nor CUPE and its Local 148.
[3]. Nevertheless, before engaging in a review of the Board’s March 20, 2001 decision and the material filed by the parties prior to the hearing of this matter on March 16, 2001 to determine whether the “clarification” sought by the applicant is warranted, it is appropriate, in my opinion, to invite submissions from the applicant and CUPE and it Local 148. It may well be that any concerns that the City has may be allayed by the submissions the Board receives from the applicant and CUPE and its Local 148. If that does occur, then there would not be any reason to determine the request for reconsideration. Therefore, the Board directs the applicant and CUPE and its Local 148 to file with the Board and deliver to the City on or before Monday May 14, 2001 their submissions, if any, in response to the request for reconsideration filed by the City. Should the City wish to reply to any submissions filed by the applicant and CUPE and its Local 148, that reply must be filed with the Board and delivered to the applicant and CUPE and its Local 148 on or before Friday, May 25, 2001. The Board will determine the matter shortly thereafter.
[4]. This panel of the Board remains seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board