CITY OF WINDSOR COUNCIL SERVICES IC AS 2010 | lt néot 15 2000 - RO (ONTARIO, LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD ~ cp of HR, tte = erk 0851-09-U Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Locals 82 and 543, Applicant v. ‘The Corporation of the City of Windsor, Responding Part COUNCIL AGENDA BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair. COMMUNICATIONS | MAR 0-8 2010 DECISION OF THE BOARD: February 22, 2010 Jo WO. i ‘This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) which alleges a breach of several sections of the Act in the context of the applicant’s 2009 bargaining with the responding party. While the parties eventually bargained a collective agreement, this was accomplished only after @ long, acrimonious strike. The strike took place from April 18, 2009 until about July 24, 2009. 2 This application was filed on June 19, 2009, two months after the strike was initiated. ‘The application as originally framed alleged, among other things, bad faith bargaining by the City in May and June 2009. The conduct which is alleged to have been wrongful took place after the strike had commenced. Importantly, the application, as originally framed, requests the following remedies: () To immediately rescind {the employer's] leter dated June 11, 2009. Gi Post a notice of the Board's decision in prominent places at all of [the employer's] worksites. (Gil) Give or mail a notice of the Board's decision directly to the affected employees. (iv) In the event of a cessation of the strike, make available to the CUPE Local Unions the space and time during working hours to meet with al its bargaining ‘unit employees in order to inform them as to the Employer's obligations under the Act. (0) Cease and desist from any further violations of the Act. (vi) Negotiate with the CUPE Local Unions in good faith. (vil) Any/al orders or remedies the Board deems appropriate in the circumstances Notably, none of the remedies requested is a claim for wages lost as a result of an alleged extension of the strike due to the employer’s conduct. 4. On November 19, 2009, well after the strike was over, the applicant sought to amend its application by including further particulars, These particulars relate to events which allegedly occurred from July 10, 2009 to the date the strike was settled. Again, there is no claim for damages arising out of those events.Bhs 5. By decision dated November 25, 2009 the Board gave the employer an opportunity to file submissions with respect to the request to amend the application. ‘The employer did so and objected to the amendment. In addition, the employer submitted that the Board ought to exercise its discretion not to inquire into this application, whether amended or not, because, in view of the settling of the collective agreement, there is no labour relations reason to do so. 6 The union filed submissions in response to the position taken by the employer. It asserts that the Board ought to proceed to hearing with respect to this application. This decision determines the issues raised by the employer. 7. First, I see no reason not to permit the union to amend its application. No hearing has commenced, there is no prejudice to the employer by permitting the amendment, and the allegations all arise generally out of the same circumstances. 8. ‘The employer's motion that the Board ought to exercise its discretion not to inquire into this matter is more challenging. In its submissions the union acknowledges the Board is “sometimes inclined not to inquire further into unfair labour practice complaints involving allegations of bad faith bargaining subsequent to a collective agreement having been entered into by the parties to the application”. ‘The union is quite right, 9. This is such a case. All of the acts complained of commenced after the strike commenced. ‘There is also no real allegation that the employer's conduct lengthened the strike, nor is there a claim for damages arising out of an allegation that the employer’s conduct lengthened the duration of the strike. 10.___ The union asserts there are still issues between the parties (as suggested by the amendment to the application) and also that its complaints are not simply of bargaining in bad faith but involve allegations of employer interference and other violations of s. 70, 72 and 76 of the Act. ML While the union’s allegations are more than just bargaining in bad faith, I disagree with the union that it is appropriate or useful to litigate them. In my view the Board ought not to inquire into this application given that the parties have entered into a collective agreement. 12, First, while the union’s application alleges violation of s. 70, 72 and 76 of the Act, itis apparent that those allegations essentially all relate to the employer's conduct during bargaining. So, for example, the June 11, 2009 letter which is the subject of a specific remedial request, relates to an employer “instruction” to employees regarding picket line conduct, with a threat of iscipline/discharge if employees do not respect the rules. However, there is no suggestion that it had any effect on the employees at all. It is also closely connected with the collective bargaining process. 13. Jn my view, to litigate these complaints would be a lengthy process which would only serve to re-open old wounds. I see no real reason to engage in that process in these circumstances now that the parties have reached a collective agreement. Accordingly, the Board declines to inquire into this application. “Brian McLean” for the Board 2