1951-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Central Park Lodges Ltd. Kanata Retirement Residence, Responding Party v. Canadian Health Services, Intervenor.
2179-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Canadian Health Care Workers, Responding Party.
2180-01-U National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Central Park Lodges Ltd. and CPL Inc. and Central Health Services and Retirement Residences Real Estate Investment Trust, Responding Parties.
2187-01-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) , Applicant v. Central Park Lodges Ltd. and CPL Inc. and Central Health Services and Retirement Residences Real Estate Investment Trust, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 7, 2001
1The Board is in receipt of a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision of November 6, 2001 (“the decision”) wherein the Board abridged the time limits for filing of responses in three of the above-noted files. The request is from one of the responding parties in the application for certification, Canadian Health Services (“CHS”).
2The Board is also in receipt of correspondence from Canadian Health Care Workers (“CHCW”) who object to the filing of certain submissions by the applicant on the basis that they are untimely.
3CHS requests that the Board allow it to respond in Board File Nos. 2179-01-R, 2180-01-U and 2187-01-R within the normal time frames. It also asserts that it does not have sufficient time to assess the feasibility of consolidation.
4Board File No. 1951-01-R is an application for certification. Board File No. 2179-01-R is an application to terminate bargaining rights. Board File No. 2180-01-U is an application under section 96 of the Act and Board File No. 2187-01-R is an application under section 69/1(4) of the Act. Having reviewed the nature of all the applications, it appears as though they interrelate and involve the same parties and similar issues. It is on this basis that they are scheduled to be heard together and the time frames for responses are abridged.
5The parties who must file responses early have one week from the date of the decision to do so. The time provided is sufficient to respond to these applications because of the overlap of issues.
6The matters have not been consolidated but rather scheduled for the same days of hearing. The decision provides that the panel scheduled to hear these applications can determine the best way to proceed. This would include the most efficient order of proceeding and which, if any, of the applications should be adjourned. It appears to the Board that this remains the most efficient and fair way to proceed.
7Having regard to the reasons expressed above, the request for reconsideration is denied.
8In respect of the request of the CHCW, the issue of the timeliness of submissions may be raised before the panel scheduled to hear these applications.
9Further to the decision of November 6, 2001, the terminal date in Board File No. 2179-01-R is also abridged to November 13, 2001.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board