ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD. Labour Relations Act, 1995

Transcription

1 ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD Labour Relations Act, 1995 OLRB Case No: VO Last Offer Vote College Employer Council, Applicant v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party COVER LETTER TO THE PARTIES LISTED ON APPENDIX A: The Board is attaching the following document(s): Decision - November 7, 2017 The French translation will follow. DATED: November 07, 2017 Catherine Gilbert Registrar Website: Address all communication to: The Registrar Ontario Labour Relations Board 505 University Avenue, 2nd Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P1 Tel: Toll-free: Fax: Pg. 1 of 2

2 COMMISSION DES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DE L'ONTARIO Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail N de cas de la CRTO : VO Derniqres offres Conseil des employeurs des collqges, requprant c Syndicat des employps de la fonction publique de l'ontario, intimp LETTRE D'ACCOMPAGNEMENT L'ATTENTION DES PARTIES INDIQUeES L'ANNEXE A : La Commission joint jla prpsente le ou les documents suivants : Dpcision rendue le 7 novembre 2017 La traduction en franoais suivra. FAIT LE : 07 novembre 2017 Catherine Gilbert Greffiqre site Web : Toutes les communications doivent rtre adresspes j: La greffiqre Commission des relations de travail de l'ontario 505, avenue University 2e ptage Toronto (Ontario) M5G 2P1 Tplpphone : Sans frais : Tplpcopieur : Pg. 2 of 2

3 ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD OLRB Case No: VO College Employer Council, Applicant v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party BEFORE: Matthew R. Wilson, Alternate Chair APPEARANCES: Wallace Kenny and Christiane Emond for the applicant; David Wright and Pat Honsberger for the responding party DECISION OF THE BOARD: November 7, This is a request by the College Employer Council ( the Council ) pursuant to section 17(2) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008, S.O. 1990, c.5 ( the CCBA ). The request was filed on November 6, The Board held a hearing on November 7, 2017 to deal with issues arising from the application. 2. There is no dispute that the Council is entitled to request a vote on its final offer and that a copy of the final offer has been filed with the Board. 3. After hearing submissions from the parties, I issued a bottom-line ruling as follows: There are two issues that need to be determined. The method of the vote and the notice of the vote. The Board determines that the final offer vote shall be conducted by way of electronic voting as quickly as practicable. The Board s staff have advised me that the earliest possible date to conduct the vote is November 14, 2017.

4 - 2 - Therefore, the Final Offer Vote shall commence on November 14, 2017 and continue for a period of 48 hours. The second issue is the proper Notice of Vote. OPSEU s concern that all employees receive a copy of the Notice of Vote and the voting instructions is important. However, delivering such notice by mail is not the only way to satisfy this concern. In this era of electronic information and social media, the Board is confident that effective Notice of Vote and the voting instructions can be achieved in the following way: The Council is ordered to post the Notice of the Vote (which includes the voting instructions) and a copy of the Final offer on the council s website; The Council is ordered to ensure that each College posts the same information on its website; OPSEU is ordered to post the Notice of Vote (which includes the voting instructions) on its website; and The Board will post the Notice of the Vote (which includes voting instructions) and the Final Offer on its website. Nothing in these directions precludes either party from utilizing other methods to inform employees of the vote. The Manager of Field Services is directed to make the necessary preparations to fulfill the directions in this decision. The parties are directed to meet with the Manager of Field Services to attempt to resolve any outstanding issues arising from this decision.

5 - 3 - If either party seeks reasons for this decision, that party must make such a request to the Board no later than two days of the date of this decision. I remain seized and immediately available if the parties are unable to reach the necessary agreements. 4. Following the issuance of this oral ruling, a further issue emerged. OPSEU sought production of the college-issued addresses of the employees. These addresses had been shared with the Board as part of the process for the electronic voting. The Council argued that such addresses should not be shared, but if I was inclined to order them to be produced that I also order OPSEU to produce the personal addresses of the employees. 5. After hearing the submissions of the parties, I made the following ruling: The Board orders the Council to produce the addresses that were produced to the Board. If the staff of the Board advise that personal addresses will be used to communicate the Notice of the Vote, then the Council can renew its request for access to such personal addresses. 6. This matter is referred to the Manager of Field Services. Matthew R. Wilson for the Board

6 APPENDIX A / ANNEXE A Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP 77 King Street W 39th Floor, Toronto-Dominion Centre P.O. Box 371 Toronto ON M5K 1K8 Attention: Wallace Kenny Tel: Fax: wallace-kenny@hicksmorley.com Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP 333 Adelaide Street W 3rd Floor Toronto ON M5V 1R5 Attention: Richard A. Blair Counsel Tel: Fax: Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP 333 Adelaide Street W 3rd Floor Toronto ON M5V 1R5 Attention: David Wright Counsel Tel: Fax: OPSEU 100 Lesmill Road Toronto ON M3B 3P8 Attention: Pat Honsberger Supervisor Negotionations Unit Tel: Ext 8722; Cell: Fax: phonsberger@opseu.org Pg. 1 of 2

7 OPSEU 100 Lesmill Road Toronto ON M3B 3P8 Attention: Anastasios Zafiriadis Staff Negotiator Unit Tel: Ext 8325; Cell: Fax: Pg. 2 of 2