HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-1029.Policy.95-04-20ONTARIO
CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE
SETTLEMENT
BOARD
EMPLOY& DE LA COURONNE
DE L’ONTARIO
CPMMISSION DE
REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG lZ8
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG lZ8
TELEPHONE/TcL$PHONE: (4 16) 326- 1388
FACSIM~LE/TCL&~PIE : (4 16~ 326- 1396
1029/94
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BEFORE:
FOR THE
GRIEVOR
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
FOR THE
INTERVENOR
FOR THE
INTERVENOR
HEARING
Grievor CUPE 1750 (Policy Grievance)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Workers' Compensation Board)
Employer
S. Kaufman Vice-Chairperson
T. Browes-Bugden Member
M. Milich Member
S. Barrett
Counsel
Sack, Goldblatt & Mitchell
Barristers t Solicitors
C. Little
Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
S. McArthur
Counsel
McArthur, Vereschagin
Barristers & Solicitors
P. Leung
Workers' Compensation Board
February 20, 1995
1
INTERIM DECISION
This is a policy grievance which arises out of amend-
ments to the Crown Emnlovees' Collective Baraainina Act
(C.E.C.B.A.), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.50, found in C.E.C.B.A.,
1993, S.O. 1993 c. 38. A dispute has arisen between C.U.P.E.
Local 1750 and the employer, the Workers' Compensation Board
(W.C.B.), as to whether certain employees have been improper-
ly excluded from the bargaining unit, including but not ne-
cessarily limited to employees who have ceased to be "exclud-
ed" employees pursuant to the amendments to C.E.C.B.A.
At the outset of the proceedings the panel heard oral
representations from Mr. Peter Leung, a W.C.B. employee in
the Information Services Division, on his own behalf and on
behalf of some other employees in that group, and from Mr.
Stephen McArthur, a lawyer, on behalf of a group of W.C.B.
employees who identify themselves as P.A.C.E., or Professio-
nal Association of Compensation Employees. Mr. McArthur
sought standing for P.A.C.E., and Mr. Leung sought standing
on his own behalf and on behalf of those employees he repre-
sents in these proceedings, as intervenors, and each sought
the right to participate fully in them. The employer sup-
ported their request; the union opposed it.
The panel received written submissions from Mr. Leung,
Mr. McArthur, and counsel for the employer and the union on
this issue.
Mr. Leung's and Mr. McArthur's concerns are that owing
to the recent statutory amendments certain W.C.B. employees
may be compelled to be represented by C.U.P.E. Local 1750, to
which they object. The votes of the employees occupying the
positions which may be affected in this manner, were not ob-
tained when the bargaining unit was first established. They
consider the lack of choice as to which bargaining unit, if
2
anyI will represent those employees they represent, a signi-
ficant infringement upon the rights of those employees. Mr.
McArthur has indicated that the constitutionality of the
amendments to C.E.C.B.A. and a possible violation of the
Charter of Riahts and Freedoms (in a violation of the right
of freedom of association) may be raised on behalf of
P.A.C.E.' s membership.
Although their positions were somewhat similar, Mr.
Leung requested standing separately from P.A.C.E. He indi-
cated that he and the employees he represents are not
P.A.C.E. members and do not plan to become members of that
organization and view their interests, including their finan-
cial interests, as different from the interests of the
P.A.C.E. members.
The panel is satisfied that the employees seeking stan-
ding in these proceedings as intervenors will be potentially
if not directly and substantially affected by the outcome of
these proceedings and that to deny them intervenor status
would be inappropriate and constitute a denial of natural
justice.
The panel has considered the oral and written submis-
sions of the parties and Mr. Leung and Mr. McArthur, as well
as the following cases: Calaarv Television Ltd. and
N.A.B.E.T. (1991), 20 L.A.C. (4th) 374 (Ponak); Ontario Hvdro
and Ontario Hvdro Emplovees Union (1990), 17 L.A.C. (4th) 212
(P.C. Picher); British Clumbia Insitute of Technoloav and
Colleae of New Caledonia and New Caledonia Facultv Associa-
tion (1979), 24 L.A.C. (2d) 130 (Hope); 7
ina Metal Products and Screening Eauipment Companv, 67
C.L.L.C. 11,405 (S.C.C.) Bradlev et. al. v. Corporation of
the Citv of Ottawa, et al., 67 C.L.L.C. 11,302 (O.C.A.);
C.U.P.E. v. C.B.C., 90 C.L.L.C. 12,223 (O.C.A.); Internation-
al Chemical Workers, Local 817 and Somerville Industries Ltd.
.
3
(19691, 20 L.A.C. 404 (Palmer); Cuddv Chicks Ltd. v. LRB
(Ont.), 91 C.L.L.C. 12,218 (S.C.C.); John Noble Home and
O.N.A., Local 102 (1994), 39 L.A.C. (4th) 324 (Mitchnick);
Queen Elizabeth Hosnital and C.U.P.E., Lot. 1156, (1988), 2
L.A.C. (4th) 281 (Craven); Ottawa (Citv) and C.U.P.E., Lot.
503 (1993) 34 L.A.C. (4th) 127 (Keller); National Arts Centre
and P.S.A.C. (1981) 30'L.A.C. (2d) 431 (Shime); McKenna (103/
79); Peterborouah Countv Board of Education and C.U.P.E.,
Lot. 1680 [1990] O.L.R.B. Rep. March 330 (Surdykowski); Trans
Continental Printina Inc., Respondent, v. Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers. Local 91, Applicant. v.
GrouD of EITtDlOVeeS, Obiectors [1989] O.L.R.B. Rep. November
1187 (Gray); Peake (78/77).
The circumstances in which those seeking standing in
this proceeding arise from a unique situation in which their
potential membership in the bargaining unit arises from the
repeal of certain statutory exclusions.
The legal point of departure in a dispute of this nature
is that the parties to proceedings as between an employer and
a bargaining unit are the employer and the bargaining unit
named in the collective agreement--in this case Workers' Com-
pensation Board and C.U.P.E.; Local 1750. "The privacy of
the arbitral process and the right to expedient resolution of
disputes is acknowledged as fundamental to the arbitral
processII: British Columbia Institute, supra, p. 138.
/ Against that primary principle a substantial amount of 1 jurisprudence has arisen which establishes the right of third
parties to be given notice of such proceedings, and to parti- / I
1 cipate in them. The extent of the interest required to en- b title third parties to standing include one's status as an B employee is directly affected by the proceedings, whether by ! r I dismissal or by the effect of certification of a bargaining
unit: Hooaendoorn, supra; C.U.P.E., Local 1680 v. Peterbo-
f
i j 5
4
rouah Countv Board of Education, supra; Trans Continental
Printinq, supra, a substantial legal interest which may be
put at risk by the proceeding and its outcome: Calaarv Tele-
vision, supra, Ontario Hvdro, supra; possible affect by the
decision of the board, potential importance of impact (remo-
val of certain work): Somerville Industries Ltd., supra.
Whether there is a potential and/or actual conflict of inte-
rest between the interests of the third party and one of the
parties to the collective agreement is a consideration in
determining whether to grant standing: Hooaendoorn, supra,
as is whether the third party has access to other remedies or
another forum. The principle followed in these cases is that
arbitrators and arbitration panels have an obligation to hear
the views of those who may be affected by the outcome of the
proceedings and to consider their input by way of evidence,
and that failure to do so constitutes a denial of natural
justice, rendering the award void.
In contrast to this approach, certain arbitrators and
boards have taken a limiting or cautious approach in accord-
ing standing to third parties: John Noble Home, supra, Queen
Elizabeth Hospital, supra, Ottawa (Citv), supra, National
Arts Centre, supra, McKenna, supra. In each of these cases
the union disputed the placement through promotion or other-
wise of certain individuals in certain positions.
The panel concludes that the interests of the third
parties represented by Mr. Leung and Mr. McArthur are suffi-
ciently connected with the outcome of these proceedings as to
justify granting them a form of standing. We are, however,
concerned as a practical matter that the proceedings not re-
sult in undue delay to the parties to the agreement, the
employer and the union.
On the first day of the hearing the panel stated to Mr.
Leung that he appeared to have the written authority of one
named person to act as his agent in these proceedings, and
that if he wanted us to consider him as agent for any other
employees he claimed to represent, he would have to provide
us their written authorizations. He has provided us with the
written authorizations of 7 named employees.
Mr. McArthur indicated that he represents a group of 400
to 500 employees who are members of P.A.C.E. We do not ques-
tion that he represents the numbers of employees that he
stated. On the first day of the hearing Mr. McArthur was
accompanied by one instructing employee and mentioned the
name of one other. He advised the panel and parties that the
P.A.C.E. membership did not want the identities of its indi-
vidual members disclosed. The panel wishes to respect the
choice of those members not to disclose their identities.
However, the panel and all concerned are interested in there
being some definition and limitation as to who Mr. McArthur
represents. We understand that P.A.C.E. has a membership
list, and that it is not a formal entity, in the sense that
it does not have a constitution and is neither a registered
private nor a charitable corporation. That in itself does
not prelude its members from seeking Mr. McArthur's represen-
tation and from seeking standing before this board. However,
fairness dictates that P.A.C.E. and its representative be
held to the same standard as Mr. Leung as an agent for
certain employees.
Accordingly, we will grant limited standing as inter-
venors to Mr. Leung as representative of the 7 employees
whose written authorizations he has provided the panel and
the parties to date, and will grant the same limited standing
as intervenor to the 2 employees represented by Mr. McArthur,
whose membershhip in P.A.C.E. and whose identity has been
disclosed to the panel and the parties on the first day of
6
the hearing. Should he wish to establish that he represents
a broader base of employees, we invite Mr. McArthur to dis-
close the names of those other employees who have authorized
him to do so and who have authorized him to act on their
behalf.
In according intervenor status to two representatives of
two groups interested in the outcome of these proceedings,
whose interests, in part, are compatible with those of the
employer, the panel is mindful of the potential for the
redundancy of evidence and arguments, possibly unnecessary
compounding of and expansion of issues, delay in the deter-
mination of the issues in dispute between the parties, and
expense of protracted proceedings.
In order to eliminate some of the foregoing, we propose
that Mr. Leung and Mr. McArthur confine their evidence and
submissions to those positions in dispute which are held by
specific identified employees they each represent, and to
those issues which impact on those positions. At this point
in the proceeding, owing to the indisposition of the primary
counsel handling the file, the employer has not delivered its
opening statement. This is a preliminary direction only, and
the panel will make such further procedural directions as are
warranted as the proceedings progress.
7
Dated at Toronto this 20th day of April, 1995.
Vice-Chairman
Employer Nominee
Union Nominee
ONTARIO EMPLOY& DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L’ONJARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SElTLEMENT RiiGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WES’I; SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 128
180, RUE DUNDAS OUES7; BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G lZ8
TELEPHONE/T&LgPHONE : (416) 326: 1386
FACSIMILE/TtLiCOPIE : (416) 326- 1396
July 17, 1996
AMENDMENT
RE: 1029/94 CUPE 1750 (Policy Grievance) and the Crown in
Right of Ontario (Workers' Compensation Board)
Please attach the enclosed Dissent from Mr. M. Milich to your copy
of the above noted decision.
L. Sticklahd Registrar ,
LS/dbg
Encl.
Dissent
RE: Cupe, Local 1750 (Policy Grievance) and the WCB
GSB# 1029194
I cannot concur with my colleagues in their decision in the above matter.
As I understand it, the jurisdiction of this panel flows out ot the collective
agreement under which the grievance before was raised. In this instance, the
grievance dated August 4,IQQ4 was raised under the Collective Agreement
between Cupe, Local 1750 and WCB effective from January I, 1993 to
December 31, 1993. Apparently, although expired, it continues in force until
such time as the parties negotiate a new collective agreement. Although the
collective agreement for 1993was settled and the grievance was lodged after
CECBA, IQ93 was implemented, lt does not detract from the fact that the only
collective agreement before this panel was the IQ93 agreement. Our jurisdiction
is limited to the interpretation of this agreement and no other within the context
of the changes to CECBA.
CECBA, 1993 received Royal Assent on December 14,1993 and was
proclaimed February 14,1993. The transition provisions of Part VI of the Act
have a direct impact on the meaning of “CECBA” incorporated in Article 1.01 of
the Collective Agreement.
We have no evidence what the parties intended by the reference to “CECBA” in
Article 1.01. The best that can be said is that the original inclusion of the
reference referred to the changes brought about by the publication of the
Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980.
As my colleagues have stated, it can be argued that both parties were cognizant
of the legislation and its changes. I would further argue that they were also
aware of the possible impact of the transition provisions when they negotiated
this agreement. Cognizance of the impact of these provisions would explain the
parties continuing the reference to the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations
Tribunal in Articles 1.03 and 1.04. With the exception to complete outstanding
matters, the Tribunal was disbanded with the coming into force of CECBA, 1993.
However, in my view, the intentions of the parties in incorporating the reference
to “CECBA” in earlier collective agreements are immaterial to the interpretation
of the Article 1 .Ol in the 1993 agreement because the transition provisions of
CECBA, ‘I993 overtake them.
Sections 53 to 60 (see attached) lay out the timing and the parameters under
which the old or pre-1993 CECBA applied and when CECBA, 1993 would apply
to the collective bargaining scheme under which these parties worked. The old
Act does not vanish upon its repeal. it continues to apply until the
circumstances which arose under it have been resolved at which point CECBA,
1993 takes precedence.
Section 56 (3) states that the Labour Relations Act applies only after the old Act
is repealed. Section 66 (4) states that the old Act would apply to those
collective agreements negotiated after the repeal of the old Act but which were
made retroactive to a time before the repeal, or in circumstances where the old
Act would have applied if it had not been repealed. The 1993 agreement
between Cupe, Local 1750 and the WCB falls wholly within the parameters of
these provisions.
Section 56 (5) anticipating the resolution of collective agreements with terms
which cover both pre and post repeal periods states that the old Act applies only
until the repeal. This section has no bearing on the collective agreement before
us because its term is wholly within the time period prior to the repeal of the old
Act.
Section 57, which continues the application of the old Act until negotiations for
which notice was given under it are completed, permits the parties to agree that
the old Act does not apply to the period after CECBA, 1993 came into force
There is no evidence that the parties came to such an agreement before the
collective agreement for 1993 was completed. Nor was there any evidence that
such an agreement was reached while the negotiations for the 1994 collective
agreement were underway. In the normal course of events, notice to bargain for
the 1994 collective agreement would have been given while the old Act was still
in effect. I submit that as long as the 1993 collective agreement is in force and
no other agreement is made, the old Act continues to apply.
Under these provisions there can be no doubt that the reference to “CECBA” in
Article 1 .Ol can only mean the Act in force before CECBA, 1993 was
implemented. Under the old Act the employees in dispute before us were
excluded from the bargaining unit. Since the Agreement was retroactive to the
period ending December 31,1993 and did not straddle both the pre- and post
repeal periods, Section 56 (5) does not apply and the employees remain
excluded from the bargaining unit.
Since the Agreement was for a period entirely predating the repeal of the old
Act, I suggest that section 54 (2) bars any change to the bargaining unit until
such time as a new agreement is negotiated. It is not any agreement regardless
of its effective dates that must be negotiated by the parties before the
bargaining unit can be changed. I submit that the section refers to a collective
agreement with a term concurrent with the application of CECBA, 1993, in 1994,
othetwise the relationship between sections 56 and 57 would make no sense.
The two provisions continue the application of the old Act until matters which
started, or would have commenced, under its auspices are resolved. It may
very well have been a different matter if the agreement reached in I994 was for
both 1993 and 1994. It was not.
Although the parties neither questioned this panel’s jurisdiction nor argued that
the grievance was premature, I would still have dismissed the grievance for the
above reasons. The Charter would, therefore, have no bearing on this issue.
Clearly, the parties may still negotiate or pursue other avenues for a new
definition of the bargaining unit. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this panel
has the jurisdiction to address this grievance outside the terms of the 1993
Collective Agreement.
1993
Same
Agreement
between the
parties
Effect of
agreement
Same
(b) the partics consent.
(4) The chair of the Grievance Settlement
Board shall provide for a matter to be detcr-
mined by the chair or a vice-chair sitting
alone following a request under subsection
6 (3).
50.-(l) An employer and trade union
may make an agreement relating to matters
&hat may be determined by the Grievance
Settlement Board that provides for,
(a) certain matters that arise between
them to be determined by the chair or
a vice-chair sitting alone;
(b) the selection of the individuals who
will determine certain matters;
(c) time limits within which hearings of
certain matters must commence.
(2) Upon receiving notice of an agreement
from a party, the Grievance Settlement
Board shall give effect to it to the extent that
its schedule permits.
(3) The Grievance Settlement Board shall
cease to give effect to an agreement upon
receiving notice from a party that the party
no longer wants the agreement to apply.
Committee
for classifica- 52. If the parties to a collective agree-
ment respecting Crown employees request it, tion issues the Minister may establish a committee for
the discussion and resolution of classification
disputes between the parties.
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Definition 53. In sections 54 to 60, the “old Act”
means the Crown Employees Collective Bar-
gaining Act, being chapter C.50 of the
Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990.
-‘c
Bargaining
units 54.-(l) A unit of employees that was a
bargaining unit under the old Act immedi-
ately before the repeal of that Act is an
appropriate bargaining unit for the purposes
of the Labour Relations Act until the descrip-
tion of the bargaining unit is altered under
the Labour Relations Act.
Classification
grievances, 51. An order of the Grievance Settlement
restriction Board shall not require the creation of a new
classification of employees or the alteration
of an existing classification.
PART VI
MISCELLANEOUS
GENERAL
retard in& ou un autrc prc.iudicc, il
cst opportun de proccdcr ainsr;
b) les partics y conscntcnt.
(4) Le president de la Commission dc rtrcnl
reglement des griefs prevoit que le president
ou un vice-president siegeant scul statue sur
une question i la suite d’une demande pre-
sentee en vertu du paragraphe 6 (3).
50 (1) L’employeur et un syndicat peu- ~;f;;i~~tre
vent conclure une entente concernant les ’ 1
questions SW lesquelles la Commission de
reglement des griefs peut statuer, qui prevoit
ce qui suit :
a) certaines questions sur lesquelles ils ne
sont pas d’accord et sur lesquelles le
president ou un vice-president siegeant
seui doit statuer;
b) le choix des particuliers qui statueront
sur certaines questions; - ._
c) les dtlais dans lesquels I’audition de
certaines questions doit debuter.
(2) Des qu’elle est avisee d’une entente
par une partie, la Commission de reglement
des griefs y donne effet dans la mesure air
son horaire le Iui permet.
(3) La Commission de reglement des
griefs cesse de donner effet a une entente des
qu’elle est avisee par une partie que celle-ci
ne veut plus que l’entente s’applique.
51 Les ordonnances de la Commission de
reglement des griefs ne doivent pas exiger la
creation d’une nouvelle classification d’em-
ploy&s ni la modification d’une classification
existante.
PARTIE VI
DISPOSITIONS DIVERSES
DISPOSITIONS &NI%UES
52 Si les parties a une convention collec-
tive concernant des employ& de la Couronne
le demandent, le ministre peut creer un
comite qui discute des differends entre les
parties en mat&e de classification et les
regle.
DISPOSITIONS TRANSITOIRES
53 Aux articles 54 a 60, l’ccancienne loi),
s’entend de la Loi sur la nkgociation coliec-
tive des emp/o;ks de la Couronne, qui consti-
tue le chapitre C.50 des Lois refondues de
I’Ontario de 1990.
54 (1) L’unitt d’employes qui Ctait une
unite de negotiation aux termes de l’an-
cienne loi immediatement avant I’abrogation
de cette loi est une unite de negotiation
appropriee pour l’application de la Loi sur
les relations de travail jusqu’h ce que la defi-
nition de I’unite de nezociation soit modifiee
Prise d’effet
de I’entente
ldem
Griefs tou-
chant la clas-
sification,
restriction
ComitC rcs-
ponsable des
questions de
classification
Defmitlon
UnitCs de
nCgociation
Changes
Exception
Bargaining
agents
Collective
agreements
Labour Rela.
lions Act
applies
Same
Retroactive
collective
agreements
Same
Effect of
designation
Bill 117 PUI3f.i RVICE AND LABOUR RELA’I IONS STATUTE
Y
(2) Despite the Labour Relations Act, the
description of a bargaining unit referred to in
subsection (1) cannot be altered until after a
collective agreement is made following the
coming into force of this section.
(3) This section does not apply with
respect to a bargaining unit established under
section 23. .
55. A bargaining agent that, immediately
before the repeal of the old Act, represented
employees in a bargaining unit to which sec-
tion 54 applies continues to represent them,
for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act,
until the bargaining agent ceases, under that
Act, to represent them.
56.-(l) A collective agreement under
the old Act that had not expired before the
repeal of that Act is a collective agreement
under the Labour Relations Act.
(2) All the provisions of the Labour Rela-
tions Act that apply to a collective agreement
apply to a collective agreement referred to in
subsection (1) including provisions that deem
collective agreements to contain specified
terms.
(3) The Labour Relations Act applies
under subsection (2) only with respect to
periods after the repeal of the old Act.
(4) The old Act applies, subject to subsec-
tion (5), to a collective agreement if,
(a) the agreement is made after the repeal
of the old Act but is retroactive to a
time before the repeal of that Act; and
(b) the old Act would have applied to the
agreement had that Act not been
repealed.
(5) The old Act applies under subsection
(4) only with respect to periods before the
repeal of that Act.
(6) The establishment of bargaining units
’ under section 23 and the designation of a
bargaining agent under section 24 does not
affect the operation of a collective agreement
in force at the time of the designation, . .,
57.-(l) If notice to bargain is given
under subsection 8 (1) or 22 (1) of the old
Act before this subsection comes into force
but a collective agreement has not been
aux termes de la LAr sur les relations de
travail.
(2) Malgre la Loi sur les relations de
travail, la definition de l’unite de ndgociation
visee au paragraphe (1) ne peut pas etre
modifiee avant qu’une convention collective
n’ait CtC conclue apres l’entree en vigueur du
present article. --. . (3) Le prGnt article ne s’applique pas a
l’tgard d’une unite de negotiation formte en
vertu de l’article 23.
55 L’agent negociateur qui, immediate-
ment avant l’abrogation de I’ancienne loi,
reprtsentait des employ& compris dans une
unite de ntgociation a laquelle s’applique
l’article 54 continue de les rep&enter, pour
I’application de la Loi SW les relations de
travail, jusqu’a ce qu’il cesse, aux termes de
cette loi, de les rep&enter.
56 (1) La convention collective visee par
l’ancienne loi qui n’avait pas expire avant
l’abrogation de cette loi est une convention
collective aux termes de la Loi sur les rela-
tions de travail.
(2) Les dispositions de la Loi SW les reia-
tions de travail qui s’appliquent B une con-
vention collective s’appliquent 2 la conven-
tion collective visee au paragraphe (l), y
compris les dispositions selon lesquelles les
conventions collectives sent reputees contenir
des conditions precises.
(3) La Loi sur les relations de travail ne
s’applique aux termes du paragraphe (2) qu’a
l’egard des periodes suivant l’abrogation de
l’ancienne loi.
(4) L’ancienne loi s’applique, sous reserve
du paragraphe (5), a une convention collec-
tive si les conditions suivantes sont reunies :
a) la convention est conclue apres l’abro-
gation de l’ancienne loi, mais elle est
retroactive ii une periode precedant
l’abrogation de cette loi;
b) I’ancienne loi se serait appliquee a la
convention si elle n’avait pas ete abro-
gte.
(5) L’ancienne loi ne s’applique aux ter-
mes du paragraphe (4) qu’a l’egard des
periodes prtcedant l’abrogation de cette loi.
(6) La formation d’unites de negotiation
en vertu de Particle 23 et la designation d’un
agent negociateuf en vertu de Particle 24
n’ont aucun effet sur l’application d’une con-
vention collective en vigueur au moment ou
la designation a @tt affectuee.
57 (1) Si un avis d’intention de negocier
est donne cn vertu du paragraphe 8 (1) ou
22 (1) de I’ancienne loi avant I’entree cn
vigueur du present paragraphe, mais qu’une
convention collective n’a pas Cte conclue,
1993
Modifications
Exception
Agents n&o-
ciateun
Conventions
collectives
Application
de la Loi SW
lets relations
de travail
Idem
Effet rktroac-
tif des con-
ventions
collectives
Idem
Prise d’effef
de la designa.
tion
N&ociatiOn
1993
Exception
Exception
Essential
sewiccs
agreemenls,
negotiations
Ontario
Public
Service
Labour
Relations
Tribunal
‘Tribunal
continued
Dissolution
of Tribunal
Old Act
continues to
apply
Reconsidera-
tion
Existing
application if
undertaking
transferred
Act of the
Tribunal
Grievance
Settlement
Board
FONC-TION I’UDLIOUE ET RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL Pr. de loi 117
made, the old Act continues to apply until a
collective agreement is made.
(2) Despite subsection (l), the parties may
agree that the old Act ceases to apply before
the collective agreement is made.
(3) This section does not apply with
respect to a bargaining unit established under
section 23.
58. If section 33 comes into force after an
employer and trade union would have been
required, under that section, to begin negoti-
ating an essential services agreement, the
employer and trade union shall begin to
negotiate an essential services agreement as
soon as possible unless they agree to begin
negotiations later.
59.-(l) In this section, “Tribunal”
means the Ontario Public Service Labour
Relations Tribunal.
(2) The Tribunal is continued for the pur-
poses ‘of disposing of any matters in respect
of which an application was made to the Tri-
bunal before the repeal of the old Act.
(3) The Tribunal is dissolved on the day it
disposes of the last of the matters referred to
in subsection (2) or on a later day named by
proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.
(4) Despite its repeal, the provisions of
the old Act that relate to the Tribunal con-
tinue to apply with respect to the Tribunal
and to the matters before it until the Tribu-
nal is dissohred.
(5) While the Tribunal is continued, it
may reconsider anything under section 39 of
the old Act and, after it is dissolved, the
Ontario Labour Relations Board may recon-
sider anything done by the Tribunal.
(6) If an undertaking is transferred, within
the meaning of section 10, while an applica-
tion is before the Tribunal for representation
rights in respect of the employees employed
in the undertaking or for a declaration that a
trade union no longer represents the employ-
ees, the application shall be transferred to
the Board and the employer to whom the
undertaking is transferred is the employer for
the purposes of the application.
(7) Anything done by the Tribunal shall e I be deemed, after the old Act% repealed, to
have been done by the Ontario Labour Rela-
tions Board.
60.-(l) Section 51 applies with respect
to all matters referred for arbitration to the
Grievance Settlement Board after June 14,
1993.
I’ancicnnc loi continue dc s’appliqucr jusqu’a
ce qu’unc convention collective soit conclue.
(2) MalgrC le paragraphc (I), ICS parties
peuvent convenir que I’ancicnnc loi case de
s’appliquer avant que la convention collective
ne soit conclue.
(3) Le present article ne s’applique pas h
I’egard d‘une unit6 de rkgociation formic en
vertu de l’article 23.
58 Si I’article 33 entre en vigueur apr&
que l’employeur et un syndicat auraient tte
tenus, aux termes de cet article, de commen-
cer 8 negocier une entente sur les services
essentiels, l’employeur et le syndicat com-
mencent B en negocier une le plus tot possi-
ble, P moins qu’ils ne conviennent de com-
mencer plus tard les negotiations.
59 (1) Dans le present article, <cTri-
bunal, s’entend du Tribunal des relations de
travail de la foncrion publique de I’Ontario.
(2) Le Tribunal est maintenu afin de sta-
tuer sur les questions a l’tgard desquelles
une requete lui a ete presentbe avant l’abro-
gation de l’ancienne loi.
(3) Le Tribunal est dissous le jour oti ii
statue sur la demiere des questions visees au
paragraphe (2) ou a la date ulterieure que le
lieutenant-gouvemeur fixe par proclamation.
(4) MalgrC l’abrogation de l’ancienne loi,
les dispositions de celle-ci qui se rapportent
an Tribunal continuent de s’appliquer a
1’Cgard du Tribunal et des questions dont il
est saisi jusqu’a ce qu’il soit dissous.
(5) Pendant qu’il est maintenu, le Tribunal
peut reexaminer tout ce qui est vise a Particle
39 de l’ancienne loi et, apres sa dissolution,
la Commission des relations de travail de
1’Ontario peut reexaminer tout ce qu’a fait le
Tribunal.
(6) Si une entreprise est cedee, au sens de
l’article 10, apres que le Tribunal a CtC saisi
d’une requete selon laquelle il lui est
demand6 d’accorder le droit de representer
les employ& qui sont employ& dans l’entre-
prise ou de declarer qu’un syndicat ne
represente plus les employ&, la requite est
renvoyee a la Commission et l’employeur a
qui l’entreprjse est cedte est l’employeur aux
fins de la requtte.
(7) Tout ce qu’a fait le Tribunal est
repute, aprts l’abrogation de l’ancienne loi,
avoir ete fait par la Commission des relations
de travail de I’Ontario.
60 (1) L’article 51 s’applique a I’egard
de toutes les questions soumises a l’arbitrage
de la Commission de reglement des griefs
apres le 14 juin 1993.
27
Exception
ExceptIon
Ententes SW
l-3 services
essentiels,
n&ociations
Tribunal des
relations de
travail de la
fonction
pubhque de
I’Ontario
Maintien du
Tribunal
Dissolution
du Tribunal
Application
de I’ancienne
loi
Rtexamen
Requtte en
tours si I’en-
treprise est
cOdCe
Actes du-
Tribunal
Commission
de reglement
des gwfs
28
l3fec1 vi
reduclions rn
sire
Termination
of frame-
work agree-
ments
Same
Amended
agreements
included
Repeals
Bill 117
i ( PUBLIC SEKVICE AND LAROUH KELATIONS STATUTE L i
(2) No reduction in the number of vicc-
chairs or members of the Grievance Settle-
ment Board shall have any effect on a term
of a vice-chair or a member if that term
began before the repeal of the old Act.
61.-( 1) The agreements described in sub-
section (2) and agreements made under them
are terminated at the end of 1994.
(2) The agreements referred’ to in subsec-
tion (1) are the following:
1. The memorandum of agreement dated
July 21, 1989 between the Government
of Ontario and the Ontario Crown
Attorneys’ Association and the Associ-
ation of Law Officers of the Crown.
2. The memorandum of agreement dated
October 5, 1990 between the Govern-
ment of Ontario and the Association
of Professional Engineers and Archi-
tects of the Government of Ontario.
(3) This section also applies with respect
to an amended agreement that replaces an
agreement described in subsection (2).
REPEALS
6 2. - (1) The Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act is repealed.
(2) Section 2 of the Public Service Statute
Law Amendment Act, 1993 is repealed.
PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
63. ~(1) The Public Service Act is
amended by adding the following heading
before section 1:
PART I.
GENERAL
(2) Clause 4 (b) of the Act is amended by
striking out “through bargaining pursuant to
the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining
Act” in the last three lines and substituting
“through collective bargaining”.
(3) Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the
Act are repealed.
(4) The Act is amended by adding the fol-
lowing heading before section 26:
PART II
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL qQLlCE
(5) The Act is amended by adding the fol-
lowing Part:
(2) Nullc rkduction du nombre de vice-
prksidents ou de membres de la Commission
de rkglement des griefs n’a d’effet sur le
mandat d’un vice-pksident ou d’un membre
si le mandat en question a dCbutC avant
I’abrogation de I’ancienne loi.
61 (1) Les ententes mentionnkes au
paragraphed.2) et celles conclues aux termes
de celles-ci prennent fin dts que se termine
I’annCe 1994.
(2) Les ententes vi&es au paragraphe (1)
sont les suivantes :
1. Le protocole d’accord en date du 21
juillet 1989 entre le gouvernement de
l’ontario, 1’Ontario Crown Attorneys’
Association et 1’Association des avo-
cats de la Couronne.
2. Le protocole d’accord en date du
5 octobre 1990 entre le gouvernement
de I’Ontario et 1’Association des ingi-
nieurs et architectes du gouvernement
de I’Ontario.
(3) Le present article s’applique Cgalement
B 1’Cgard d’une entente modifike qui rem-
place une entente mentionnte au paragraphe
(2).
ABROGATIONS
62 (1) La Loi SW lu &gociation collective
des emphyks de la Couronne est abrogke.
(2) L’article 2 de la Loi de 1993 modl#ant
des lois en ce qui concerne la fonction publique
est abrogk.
LOI SUR LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE
63 (1) La toi sur la fonction publique est
modifike par insertion de I’intertitre suivant
avant I’article 1 :
PARTIE I
DISPOSITIONS GtiNkRALES
(2) L’alinCa 4 b) de la Loi est modif% par
substitution, B ten vertu de la .?.& sur la &go-
ciation collective des employ&s de la Couronnen
aux trois dernikres lignes, de cccollectiveu.
(3) Les articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 et 16 de
la Loi sont abrogks.
(4) La Loi est moditike en outre par inser-
tion de I’intertit,re suivant avant I’article 26 :
PARTIE II
POLICE PROVINCIALE DE L’ONTARIO
(5) La Loi est modifike en outre par
adjonction de la partie suivante :
Fin des
entcntes
ldem
Inclusion
d’ententes
modifiees
Abrogations