Skip to content

The Prince Edward Island Labour Relations Board carves out a group of firefighters from an existing bargaining unit

Hilary Foster

Earlier this year, the Prince Edward Island Labour Relations Board (“Board”) issued a decision¹ wherein it certified the Charlottetown Professional Firefighters Association (“Association”) as bargaining agent for:

All employees of the City of Charlottetown Fire Department below the rank of Deputy Chief, including Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Fire Inspectors, Fire Prevention Officers, Firefighter II’s, Seasonal Firefighters, and Entry Level Seasonal (ELS) Firefighters, employed in the City of Charlottetown.

In doing so, the Board “carved out”, or “fragmented”, the employees of the City of Charlottetown Fire Department (“Firefighters”) from their existing bargaining unit, CUPE, Local 501.

Background

At the time the Association filed its Application for Certification on August 4, 2017 (“Application”), CUPE, Local 501 was the certified bargaining agent for the following civic affairs departments of the City of Charlottetown (“City”): fire, clerical, public works, public property and parks and recreation. The Firefighters had been a part of the CUPE, Local 501 bargaining unit since 1953.

The Board’s decision

The Board broke its decision into two separate issues:

  1. whether the Board should allow the Firefighters to be carved out from the existing bargaining unit; and
  2. if the carve out should be allowed, whether the Application satisfied the certification requirements under the Labour Act, RSPEI 1988, c L-1.

I. Carve out

In determining that the carve out should be allowed in this case, the Board found that the Firefighters led sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption in favour of the appropriateness of the existing bargaining unit, and had established that there were compelling labour relations reasons to carve up the existing unit.

The Board recognized the well-established principle that most labour boards prefer to consolidate bargaining units, rather than break apart, or fragment, existing units. The following principles with respect to applications to fragment existing bargaining units were cited by the Board:

  • there is a strong presumption in favour of the appropriateness of an existing bargaining unit;
  • the onus lies on the party seeking to change the bargaining unit to rebut the presumption in favour of the existing unit, by establishing that there are compelling labour relations reasons to carve up the unit;
  • the Board should look for cogent evidence of real operations or labour relations problems in the existing bargaining unit structure before it considers a certificate to break apart an existing unit; and
  • the employees’ wishes in the carved out group are relevant, but are not on their own sufficient to overcome the Board’s reluctance to change the existing bargaining unit structure.

Evidence at the hearing of the Application demonstrated that the Firefighters were experiencing difficulty in having their grievances heard in a timely manner. As of the date the Application was filed, the Firefighters had fourteen grievances outstanding, some of which had been outstanding for at least six years.

The Firefighters also submitted evidence that CUPE, Local 501 had failed to negotiate a 24-hour shift schedule for the Firefighters. This meant that career Firefighters were required to work alone at times. The Board heard evidence that, in the past, career Firefighters who had been working alone had been unable to enter a building at the scene of a fire due to the requirement that at least one other firefighter be present.

Further, the Board’s decision noted the evidence before it indicated that the Firefighters training and work performed was very different than the remainder of workers in the CUPE, Local 501 bargaining unit. Most other workers were, for example, truck drivers, equipment operators, park staff and street sweepers.

Being satisfied that the carve out should be allowed, the Board moved on to the second issue – the determination of whether the Application satisfied the certification requirements under the Labour Act, RSPEI 1988, c L-1.

II. Certification requirements

In order for the Association to be certified as bargaining agent for the Firefighters, the Association had to establish: (1) that it was a trade union; (2) that a majority of the Firefighters were in favour of selecting the Association as its bargaining agent; and (3) that the bargaining unit that would be formed by the Association would be appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board was satisfied that the Association was a trade union and that the majority of the Firefighters wished for the Association to act as their bargaining unit. The bulk of the Board’s analysis was spent on its determination of whether the Firefighters’ proposed bargaining unit was “appropriate” for collective bargaining. The Board considered a number of factors, including the following:

  • the Firefighters had a strong “community of interest”;
  • industry practice indicated that firefighters are typically represented by their own “stand-alone units” comprised of firefighters only;
  • the City did not oppose the proposed bargaining unit;
  • the qualifications and training of the Firefighters were more comprehensive than the other groups in the CUPE, Local 501 bargaining unit;
  • there was essentially no mobility between other groups of CUPE, Local 501 to the Firefighters group;
  • little contact was had between the Firefighters and other groups in the CUPE, Local 501 bargaining unit; and
  • the Firefighters had different reporting and pay structures than the other groups in the CUPE, Local 501 bargaining unit.

In summary, the Board was of the view that the Applicant’s bargaining unit was appropriate and that it would be responsive to the qualifications, needs and expectations of the Firefighters. The Board carved out the Firefighters from the existing CUPE, Local 501 bargaining unit, and certified the Association as the bargaining agent for the Firefighters.

Take away from this decision

Successful carve out applications are rare. Labour boards regularly refuse such applications based on the principle that larger bargaining units promote industrial stability.  The Board’s decision on this Application is very much the exception. It does, however, serve as a reminder that the presumption in favour of the appropriateness of the existing bargaining unit is one that can be rebutted on the right set of facts.


¹ Charlottetown Professional Firefighters Assn. and Charlottetown (City), Re, 26 C.L.R.B.R. (3d) 1 [2019].


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


Generic filters

 
 

Employer obligations for the October 21 federal election

October 15, 2019

Killian McParland With the federal election coming up next week on October 21, 2019, it is a good time for a reminder of the employer obligations under the Canada Elections Act. Employees who are eligible…

Read More

Are you compliant with the Canada Elections Act? New changes mean entities ought to be careful in assessing their obligations

September 9, 2019

John Samms The upcoming federal election is drawing near. You may be thinking about exercising your democratic and constitutional right to vote – you may not be. You may never even consider participating in the…

Read More

New occupational health and safety legislation regarding harassment effective in Newfoundland and Labrador January 1, 2020

August 30, 2019

Twila Reid and Kara Harrington On January 1, 2020, changes to the Newfoundland and Labrador Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, 2012 (“Regulations”) will take effect. These changes impact employers in a variety of ways, most…

Read More

Federal employers – significant changes to the Canada Labour Code to come into force September 1, 2019

August 29, 2019

Peter McLellan, QC In the January 18, 2019 article, Change is the only constant – Bill C-86 changes in federal labour and employment regulation, we outlined in detail massive changes to how federal labour and…

Read More

Proposed Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations under the Canada Labour Code

August 2, 2019

Rick Dunlop and Madeleine Coats The proposed Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (“Regulations”) will replace the current workplace violence obligations in the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. Although the Regulations will likely not…

Read More

The Prince Edward Island Labour Relations Board carves out a group of firefighters from an existing bargaining unit

July 31, 2019

Hilary Foster Earlier this year, the Prince Edward Island Labour Relations Board (“Board”) issued a decision¹ wherein it certified the Charlottetown Professional Firefighters Association (“Association”) as bargaining agent for: All employees of the City of…

Read More

The New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board affirms longstanding practice against piecemeal certification of bargaining units

July 8, 2019

Bryan Mills and John Morse On May 21, 2019, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board (”Board”) dismissed an application by the New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees (“Union”) seeking certification as bargaining…

Read More

Carbon pricing: Ontario Court of Appeal delivers constitutional endorsement

July 5, 2019

Jonathan Coady and Justin Milne The Ontario Court of Appeal has found that the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act¹ is valid federal legislation.² The Act implements national minimum pricing standards to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.…

Read More

A Charter right to testamentary freedom? The NSSC decision in Lawen Estate

July 2, 2019

Richard Niedermayer, TEP, Jennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross, summer student There is a right to testamentary freedom under section 7 of the Charter, according to a recent decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. In…

Read More

Hydro-Quebec now subject to annual energy cap, but not a monthly cap, under much-disputed 1969 power contract: Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. v Hydro-Quebec, 2019 QCCA 1072

June 24, 2019

John Samms Introduction Much ink has been spilled on the controversial 1969 power contract between Hydro-Quebec and CFLCo (the contract) and last week the Quebec Court of Appeal added to the pile with its decision…

Read More

Search Archive


Generic filters

Scroll To Top