Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between: Stuart Joyce, Robert Elford, Jayne Balharrie, Tim Horn, Nancy Doherty, Applicants v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4000, Responding Party v. The Ottawa Hospital, Intervenor.
Before: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board; December 4, 2001
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act.
2It involves a number of applicants employed in The Ottawa Hospital’s (the “employer”) Biomedical Communications department. The applicants are in a dispute with the employer over job description reviews and reclassifications. The applicant’s are frustrated with what they contend are the delays in the process.
3The responding union (“the union”) contends that this application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis for failure to make out a prima facie case or alternatively because the Board lacks the jurisdiction to grant the requested remedy. That remedy is that these positions be reviewed and reclassified.
4The Board cannot grant this remedy. However, in the event that these circumstances resulted in a breach of section 74 of the Act, the Board could require the responding union to file a grievance and proceed to arbitration. Here, the union contends that it has done so. It states in it response that it has scheduled hearing dates before a board of arbitration for January and February 2002.
5The union has provided detailed and responsive submissions. It says that the issue was first raised prior to the last set of negotiations and that it was addressed at those negotiations and at a membership meeting following the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement that resulted from the negotiations. The manner in which the issue was dealt with was the inclusion in the collective agreement of language relating to a process for job classifications and evaluation. The union advised one of the applicants (who had been on leave when the Memorandum if Agreement was entered into) that there were ongoing disputes with management on this issue and that the union was addressing them. As stated, an arbitration hearing is scheduled to address these disputes. The union also details other action it has undertaken.
6It is clear from the response that on the union’s facts there has been no breach of section 74 nor can the remedy desired to the applicants be granted. Section 74 of the Act is not designed to address collective agreement provisions. That is what collective bargaining and arbitration boards address.
7In the event that the applicants dispute that the matter is proceeding to arbitration, they should advise the Board within five (5) days of the date of this decision. Those submissions should contain specific areas in which the applicants dispute what the union has pled in its response and the applicant’s version of events. In the event that there is no substantial dispute or if no submissions are received within that time frame, this application will be dismissed.
8I remain seized to deal with the submissions received pursuant to this decision.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board