Greater Hamilton Volunteer Firefighters Association v. City of Hamilton, 2001 CanLII 17299

City of Hamilton v. Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association

2684-99-M City of Hamilton, Applicant v. Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association, Responding Party.

2097-01-R Greater Hamilton Volunteer Firefighters Association, Applicant v. The Corporation of the City of Hamilton, Responding Party v. Hamilton Professional Firefighters’ Association, Intervenor.

BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 6, 2001

1The Board has received a request for reconsideration of its decision of November 29, 2001 from the Greater Hamilton Volunteer Firefighters’ Association (referred to as the “Volunteer Firefighters”). In that decision, the Board set down the application in Board File No. 2097-01-R for hearing on January 10 and 11, 2002. Those dates had originally been scheduled for the continuation of the hearing of the application in Board File No. 2684-99-M. After considering the submissions of the Volunteer Firefighters, the Board has decided not to reconsider its decision.

2The Volunteer Firefighters object to the Board changing the hearing dates of December 10 and 11, 2001, which it expected to be used for its application, to January 10 and 11, 2002. The Volunteer Firefighters complain that there is no reason to delay the hearing in Board File No. 2097-01-R until January, 2002 and the Board’s process in doing so was improper and unfair.

3The Board has the discretion to set hearing dates as it considers appropriate. It is usual for the Board to set certification applications down for hearing expeditiously and the Board is generally reluctant to adjourn such dates without the consent of the parties. However, the Board may, and will, do so where it is warranted. The certification application in Board File No. 2097-01-R has been filed in the context of ongoing litigation between the City of Hamilton (referred to as the “City”) and the Hamilton Professional Firefighters’ Association (referred to as the “Firefighters’ Association”). That litigation is related to the City’s ambition to impose a different management structure on its amalgamated fire service. The City takes the position that the members of the Volunteer Firefighters, the applicants in Board File No. 2097-01-R, are part-time firefighters and therefore part of the Firefighters’ Association bargaining unit. The Association has not taken a position but has an obvious interest in the matter if the City’s position were to prevail. Therefore, the Board considered it appropriate to hear this application with those considerations in mind and to use the dates scheduled for Board File No. 2684-99-M. Those dates were scheduled for early January 2002 and did not therefore constitute much of a delay. The Board also wished to ensure that the certification would not just begin expeditiously but would end expeditiously. If the certification application commenced on December 10 and 11, 2001 before a different Vice-Chair and with different counsel and was not completed, it might not have been possible to find any continuation dates for several months. By using the January dates that had been scheduled for Board File No. 2097-01-R, the Board could ensure that there were five further dates in January which could be used if the matter was not completed in two days.

4The Volunteer Firefighters have also expressed concern that the Vice-Chair advised the City and the Firefighters’ Association of the decision to hold the hearing of the certification application on January 10 and 11, 2002 when they attended before me on the other application. The Vice-Chair had already made, but not released, the decision to hold the hearing on January 10 and 11, 2002. That decision was based on correspondence from the Firefighters’ Association dated November 16, 2001 requesting that the matter be heard on the January dates as well as correspondence from the City dated November 21, 2001 agreeing to that request, and correspondence from the Volunteer Firefighters’ Association dated November 21, 2001 responding to that request. The decision was also based on the Vice-Chair’s considerable knowledge of the ongoing labour relations issues in the City’s fire service acquired as a result of the litigation between the parties. The Vice-Chair was unaware that the parties were going to make further submissions on the adjournment request. The Vice-Chair did not receive submissions from the parties’ at the hearing on November 29, 2001 on the matter and it had not seen their submissions of November 28, 2001 at the time. The Board merely advised them of the decision, as it was relevant to the scheduling of their ongoing settlement discussions. However, the Board has now reviewed all of the submissions as well as the Volunteer Firefighters request for reconsideration and the Board still considers it appropriate to hold the hearing of Board File No. 2097-01-R on January 10 and 11, 2002 for the reasons set out above.

5The Board did not advise Ms. Kaplan on November 29, 2001 that she could extend the date for filing her submissions. Ms. Kaplan advised the Board as an aside in the context of settlement discussions of the other application that she was planning to file her submissions at a later date and the Board did not object as it was not relevant to the matter at hand. The Board has now considered the objection of the Volunteer Firefighters to granting an extension to the City, but in the circumstances sees no prejudice in allowing it until December 7, 2001 to file its materials.

6The Board does not consider it appropriate to reconsider its decision of November 29, 2001 and the hearing of the application in Board File No. 2097-01-R will therefore take place on January 10 and 11, 2002 and will continue on January 15, 16, 17, 22 and 25, 2002 if necessary.

7The Volunteer Firefighters have also asked to have the issue of their status determined without a hearing. The Board does not consider it appropriate to decide that significant substantive issue without a hearing.