NOTICE
TO ALL AIR CANADA RAMP, BAGGAGE STATION ATTENDANTS AND LEAD STATION ATTENDANTS
YESTERDAY (MARCH 18, 2014) THE UNION REQUESTED AN EMERGENCY CALL WITH AIR CANADA AND ARBITRATOR TEPLITSKY TO REQUEST THAT AIR CANADA “CEASE AND DESIST” FROM PUTTING OUT THE SUMMER BID UNTIL WE CONCLUDE THE ARBITRATION DEALING WITH THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF ALL CONNECTION LEAD FUNCTIONS.
THE AWARD IS AS FOLLOWS:
I issued an award dated October 4, 2013. The award expressly provides that “I remain seized”.
The Union sought a cease and desist order during the teleconference. The bid which it wishes to defer until the merits of the grievance are decided is scheduled for this week.
The employer is prepared to set a date for the arbitration. It opposes a cease and desist order. It submits that if the Union succeeds on the merits, I can make a remedial order which would make the Union’s members whole.
As Chief Arbitrator, on occasions I made a cease and desist order in a teleconference to avoid irreparable harm. Ordinarily, such orders should be made at in-person hearings but emergent circumstances may require more immediate action. These cease and desist orders via teleconference were made at the behest of the Union and the employer.
In this case, I am satisfied that a cease and desist order is not necessary because I can remedy any harm should the Union prevail on the merits.
I turn to a matter that arose during the teleconference. I asked why the Union had delayed in bringing its request forward until only a few days before the bid. The response was that the employer had indicated that it did not want me to arbitrate matters on which I am seized.
The position in law is as follows: Where I remain seized pursuant to an award, the matter is to be brought back before me unless the parties agree to have the matter heard by another arbitrator.
Absent agreement, the wish of one party as to the seized arbitrator has no relevance.
Either party can, of course, seek the recusal of an arbitrator on a number of grounds usually encompassed in the expression “because of a reasonable apprehension of bias”. In the first instance, an application for recusal must be brought before the arbitrator against whom the allegation is made.
I note that no recusal application was brought by the employer. Accordingly, on a go- forward basis, where I am seized and the parties have not agreed to another arbitrator, I expect no difficulties in arranging dates for teleconferences or hearings with respect to such matters.
Applications for my recusal will be made in writing and submitted with supporting material in advance to both the other party and to me.
Any departure from this protocol and any efforts to delay or hinder access to justice are not in the best interests of the parties or the goal of harmonious Labour Relations. The parties may expect an appropriate response should any future issues of this kind arise.
DATED the 19th day of March, 2014.
WE WILL UPDATE YOU AFTER THE ARBITRATION ON APRIL 2,2014. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONTINUED SUPPORT.
IN SOLIDARITY,
BOYD RICHARDSON
GENERAL CHAIRPERSON
CENTRAL REGION
