3010-00-PS 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; October 25, 2001
- The Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 527 of the International Association of Fire Fighters (“Local 527”) by letter dated October 22, 2001 seeks clarification of the effective date of the Board’s decision dated March 20, 2001 in this application under sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 21 (the “PSLRTA”). The Board, at paragraph 42 of that decision, stated:
Therefore, pursuant to section 22 of the PSLRTA the Board hereby orders that the following bargaining unit in relation to fire fighters employed by the City is appropriate for the operations of the City and pursuant to section 23 of the PSLRTA determines that Local 527 is the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the following bargaining unit:
All Fire Fighters as defined in section 41(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act employed by the City of Greater Sudbury save and except the General Manager of Emergency Services/Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chiefs, and the Executive Assistant to the General Manager of Emergency Services/Fire Chief.
Local 527 had sought clarification of that March 20^th^ decision by way of an application for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Board on May 10, 2001. The Board has not received nor requested submissions from the other parties with respect to this most recent request of Local 527, as I am not prepared to address or determine in this decision the issue that Local 527 has raised.
- Counsel for Local 527 submits in his letter to the Board (which he copied to the other parties in this proceeding) that there “appears to be some confusion…with respect to the effective date of the Board’s decision.” and goes on to outline the nature or source of that confusion in the following terms:
While it is clear from the provisions of Bill 136 that the provisions of the predecessor collective agreements remain in effect as “siloed” agreements until such time as a first collective agreement is concluded, the employer has taken the position that the bargaining unit description and the corresponding bargaining rights of the Association are also held in abeyance until the first collective agreement is reached. The Association takes the position that these rights come into effect immediately on the Board’s determination and that, accordingly, all of the provisions of the collective agreements must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the new bargaining unit description.
- The PSLRTA in my opinion makes clear when the Board’s decision is effective. The Board’s orders in relation to Local 527 were made under sections 22 and 23 of the PSLRTA. Section 22(8) of the PSLRTA provides:
The order [under section 22] comes into effect at the same time as the related order under section 23.
Section 23(9) of the PSLRTA provides:
When an order is made under subsection (1) determining that a bargaining agent represents the employees in a bargaining unit, the bargaining rights of every other bargaining agent with respect to the employees in the bargaining unit are terminated.
The Board made its order in relation to Local 527 under section 23 of the PSLRTA on March 20, 2001. Thus, the order made under section 22 in relation to the Local 527 bargaining unit description was effective at the same time as the Board’s order under section 23 determining that Local 527 was the bargaining agent of the employees in that bargaining unit. Those orders were made on March 20, 2001 and were, in my view, effective as of that date.
It seems to me, however, the issue between the parties is not really the effective date of the Board’s decision but rather appears to be the consequences of that decision on the collective agreements that were in place at the time of that decision. Indeed, the letter from counsel for the applicant indicates that the parties disagree over whether “all of the provisions of the collective agreements must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the new bargaining unit description.” The Board cannot, in my view, comment on that issue in this proceeding.
Section 27 of the PSLRTA provides:
If a dispute arises about the application of section 24, 25, or 26, the employer or the bargaining agent may apply to the Board for an order resolving the dispute.
The request for clarification made by Local 527 may be considered an issue between it and the employer arising about the application of sections 24, 25 or 26 of the PSLRTA or it may be a matter of interpretation of the collective agreements or it may be both. In any case, whether the dispute must be dealt with through the dispute resolution provisions found in the applicable collective agreements, or by the Board in an application under section 27 of the PSLRTA, it is apparent that the Board, in this proceeding, is not in a position to determine what consequences result from the Board’s order with respect to the Local 527 bargaining unit that was effective on March 20, 2001.
- The Board therefore declines to make any further orders in relation to this matter in this proceeding without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the parties to commence other proceedings before the Board or elsewhere to deal with the issues raised by Local 527.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board