Ontario Labour Relations Board
2649-00-M Joyce Facey, Applicant v. Ontario Nurses Association, Responding Party Trade Union v. The Scarborough Hospital – Grace Division, Responding Party Employer.
2720-00-M Arlene Guthrie, Applicant v. Ontario Nurses Association, Responding Party Trade Union v. The Scarborough Hospital – Grace Division, Responding Party Employer.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 22, 2001
1These are applications for religious exemption under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 as amended (“the Act”).
2In the Board’s (differently constituted) decision of April 27, 2001, the panel was unable to make a final determination of this matter based on the materials contained in these files at that time. Accordingly, the Board directed the Registrar to schedule these matters for a hearing. A hearing has been scheduled for June 26, 2001.
3Since that decision was issued, the applicable collective agreement was filed, and the responding party employer (“the hospital”) sent correspondence to the Board in which is described the course of events which led to the applicants being covered by the collective agreement’s terms. The other parties do not dispute the employer’s version of events. I am therefore now satisfied that this matter can be dealt with on the basis of the materials and submissions filed, without the necessity of a hearing.
4The applicants were employed as nurses by the non-union predecessor employer, which, through an amalgamation, was merged with the unionized predecessor employer in respect of which the responding party trade union (“ONA”), among other trade unions, held bargaining rights. Subsequently, a representation vote was held, and ONA was declared the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit of full and part-time nurses at the hospital, the newly amalgamated entity. ONA and the hospital entered into a memorandum of agreement, dated July 20, 2000 in which it was agreed that “the Ontario Nurses’ Association/Participating Hospital Central Collective Agreement” would be applied at the hospital on September 1, 2000, and that union dues deduction would commence in late August 2000. The applicants applied to the Board on December 4, 2000. The applications are uncontested.
5As noted in the decision of April 27, 2001, the applicants contend, and it is not disputed, that they are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (“the Church”). It is further not disputed that the historical position of the Church is that its members should not join or financially support labour unions and similar organizations. The collective agreement in question appears to be the first collective agreement applicable to the hospital. Several of its terms require that the employer must deduct from every nurse to which the collective agreement applies regular union dues, and remit them to ONA. To that extent, the applicants would be required, contrary to the tenets of their religion, to support financially a trade union. There is no requirement in the collective agreement for bargaining unit members to be members of the union, nor do there appear to any other provisions regarding fees or assessments payable by bargaining unit members to ONA.
6I am satisfied that the applicants have made out a case for the application of section 52 of the Act. Accordingly, I declare that articles 5.01, 5.02 and 5.05 of the collective agreement in respect of dues deduction and remittance do not apply to the applicants, provided that amounts equal to the dues that would otherwise be deducted are paid by the applicants or remitted by the hospital to a charitable organization mutually agreed upon by the applicants and ONA, or, to the extent they are unable to agree, to a charitable organization registered as a charitable organization in Canada under Part I of the Income Tax Act (Canada) that may be designated.
7The hearing scheduled for June 26, 2001 is hereby cancelled.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board