Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 519 v. Corporation of the City of Peterborough
0651-97 Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 519, Applicant v.
Corporation of the City of Peterborough, Respondent
Before: Phyllis Gordon, Chair, and Members Geri Sheedy and Margaret Kvetan
Appearances: John Hart for the Corporation of the City of Peterborough; Paul Brown for the Professional Fire Fighters Association
Cite as: Peterborough (Firefighters) (No. 3) (October 30, 1997) 0651-97 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, OCTOBER 30, 1997
[1]. This panel has been assigned to consider the Association’s request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated June 11, 1997. The City takes the position that the Applicant has disclosed no proper basis for reconsideration and asks that the request be denied.
[2]. The panel has reviewed the parties’ written submissions. While the Association raises a number of challenges to the decision, its principle concern is with the majority’s decision on the job class issue. In particular, the Association asserts that the original hearing panel failed to put the parties on notice that “their previous agreement on job classes was in jeopardy and the entire outcome of the litigation might turn on this point”. The Association alleges that this failure amounts to a denial of natural justice.
[3]. The City responds to the Association by noting the paragraphs in the majority decision which refer to the job class issue and which raise the majority’s concerns about the lack of evidence or submissions on this point. It is the City’s view that the panel properly put the Association on notice that job class was an issue in the proceeding and, moreover, the evidence which was before the panel supports the conclusion that Fire Fighters and Fire Alarm Operators are two separate job classes.
[4]. The majority and the minority decisions disagree on what notice was given by the panel and whether it was adequate in the circumstances to meet the requirements of natural justice. The majority decision sets out its understanding of the parties’ position and the evidence on job class in paragraphs 10 - 22 of their decision. At paragraphs 11,12, 13, and 21 the majority refers to its attempts to alert the parties to the job class issue. The minority decision refers in paragraph 4 to two inquiries from the panel on the job class issue. Neither decision quotes precisely the terms in which the panel expressed its concerns to the parties.
[5]. The Association is, in essence, asking the panel to choose the minority’s version of events over the majority’s. The City asks that the reconsideration be denied on the basis that the majority’s version is to be preferred to the minority’s. In the circumstances before this panel, where the decision makers themselves disagree and where the decisions fail to clearly describe the evidence on the disputed point, the parties’ submissions do not assist us in deciding whether a breach of natural justice has occurred which would justify the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration.
[6]. The panel is aware that the City had the original hearing recorded and transcribed. The panel feels that it would greatly assist it in determining this request if the parties could produce any excerpts from the transcripts which support their respective positions. The panel therefore directs the City to review the transcripts, particularly those which include any comments by the panel on the issue of job class. From the majority decision, it appears that these may be found at the start of the hearing on May 13, 1992, and in the testimony of Jim Cumming, John Koning and Paul Brown, as well as during the City’s final submissions. The panel further directs the City to immediately make the transcripts freely available to the Association for a similar review. The parties are to serve upon each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any excerpts from the transcript upon which they intend to rely along with any additional written submissions specifically relating to the transcripts within two weeks of the date of this decision.
[7]. The panel understands that the transcripts may still be retained by the City’s previous counsel. If there are any difficulties or delay in obtaining the transcripts the City is to advise the Tribunal immediately. If the transcripts have been lost or destroyed, the Tribunal expects the parties to provide it with affidavit evidence, based on notes taken at the time of the hearing, setting out each parties’ recollection of the panel’s statements on the job class issue and the context in which those statements were made. The parties are to advise the Tribunal as soon as possible if affidavits will be necessary and amended filing deadlines will be set.
Dated at Toronto this 30th day of October, 1997:
Phyllis Gordon, Chair
Geri Sheedy, Member
Margaret Kvetan, Member