HomeMy WebLinkAbout2256-06-U - Ranger 06-12-28
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
2256-06-U Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ranger), Applicant v. The Crown
in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Correctional Services and
Community Safety, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 28, 2006
1. This is an unfair labour practice complaint filed under s. 96 of the Labour Relations
Act, 1995 ("the Act") alleging violations of ss. 70, 72, 73(1), 76 and 87(1) of the Act.
2. The responding party contends the application fails to disclose a prima facie case, and
that counsel for the applicant, Mr. Leeb, may have a conflict of interest pursuing the matter for
the applicant.
3. There is a significant dispute of fact, but what appears to be common cause is the
following. The applicant union ("the Union") is pursuing accommodation b'Tievances [or
Robert Ranger, an employee of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services,
against the responding party ("the Employer") before the Grievance Settlement Board ("the
GSB"). The hearing of the grievances has been protracted and further hearing dates are pending.
From the Employer's response it appears that Mr. Ranger has appointed his own counsel for
certain purposes.
4. The Union's complaint concerns conversations between Mr. Ranger and Randy Denis,
the Deputy Superintendent of the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre where Mr. Ranger
previously worked. There is a dispute of fact as to who initiated the conversations and as to
exactly what was said between these gentlemen. It appears, though, that some of their discussion
concerned what might satisfy Mr. Ranger to settle his grievances. The Union complains oftms in
the application on the basis that, it alleges, the communications undermined the Union's role as
collective bargaining representative of Mr. Ranger.
5. Mr. Denis is not the Employer's representative before the GSB. He is an advisor to the
Employer's counsel, much as Mr. Ranger is to the Union's counsel. The Employer has counsel
representing it, as does the Union. The Union and the Employer are the parties to the grievances,
and the Union's and the Employer's counsel must necessarily be involved in any process to
resolve the grievances. Given this context, I am not persuaded that the fact of the conversations
between Mr. Ranger and Mr. Denis is a matter of sufficient weight as to warrant the Board's
inquiry under its unfair labour practice jurisdiction,
6. What then of the content of those conversations? Can they constitute a violation of the
Act and are they of such weight that the Board should inquire into them? There is an allegation
(denied) that Mr. Denis spoke disparagingly of the Union and of the Union's counsel, Mr. Leeb.
In the overall context - the substance of the dispute being dealt with by the parties (the Union and
the Employer) at the GSB, and a clear awareness on the part of the Employer that no agreement
- 2 -
can be reached with Mr. Ranger without the Union's concurrence ... this violation, if it occurred, is
not of such significance as to warrant the Board inquiring into it.
7. Given these conclusions, it is not necessary to address whether Mr. Leeb would have
had a conflict.
8. In summary, the Board is not satisfied it should inquire into this matter, given that the
substance of the dispute between the parties is before the GSB for detennination. In the
circumstances, the application is dismissed.
"Christopher J. Albertyn"
for the Board