Soumission

Questionnaire

In December 2004, the Hon. Joseph Frank Fontana, Minister of Labour and Housing, announced a Review of Part III of the Canada Labour Code (Labour Standards). This is the first comprehensive review of federal labour standards since this legislation was enacted in 1965.The Minister has appointed Professor Harry W. Arthurs as Commissioner to head this Review. The purpose of the Review is to produce recommendations for legislative changes to modernize federal labour standards and ensure that they remain relevant and effective in the 21st century. Public consultations will be held in September and October 2005.

The NAA Region 7 has been asked to make a submission to the Commission. Attached is a questionnaire developed by a committee of NAA Region 7 members listed below. We urge you to respond in the on-line format or by fax by August 10, 2005. The committee will then use the survey results to prepare a written submission which we will present to the Commission in October 2005.

En décembre 2004, M. Joseph Frank Fontana, Ministre du travail et du logement, a annoncé un examen de la partie III du Code canadien du travail (Normes du travail). Il s'agit du premier examen approfondi des normes du travail fédérales depuis l'adoption de cette loi en 1965.Le Ministre a nommé M. Harry W. Arthurs comme commissaire afin de diriger cet examen. L'objectif de cet examen est de présenter des recommandations quant aux modifications législatives à apporter pour moderniser les normes du travail fédérales et s'assurer qu'elles demeurent pertinentes et efficaces au 21e siècle. Des consultations publiques auront lieu en septembre et octobre 2005

La Commision a demandé à la Région 7 du NAA de préparer une soumission. Vous trouverez ci-attaché un questionnaire développé par un comité des membres de la Région 7 du NAA dont les noms apparaissent ci-dessous. On vous encourage fortement de répondre par courriel électronique ou par fax d'ici le 10 août, 2005. The comité utilisera les résultats pour soumettre un mémoire à la Commission lors de leurs audiences publiques au mois d'octobre 2005.

John Moreau (Chair), Randi Abramsky, Jean-Pierre Tremblay, Stan Lanyon, Allen Ponak

1(a) Have you arbitrated an unjust dismissal case under Part III of the Canada Labour Code?

Avez-vous arbitré un cas de congédiement injuste en vertu de la Partie III du Code Canadien du Travail?

Of 24 respondents:    De 24 réponses:

1(b) If yes, how many cases do you do per year in an average year?

Si oui, combien de cas arbitrez-vous par année, dans une année moyenne?

Of 17 respondents:    De 17 réponses :

1(c) If yes, please provide an estimate of the average number of hearing days scheduled for each case.

Si oui, donnez un estimé du nombre moyen de jours d'audition cédulés pour chaque cas.

Of 19 respondents:    De 19 réponses :

2(a) Have you ever refused a case under Part III of the Canada Labour Code?

Avez-vous refusé l'arbitrage d'un cas en vertu de la Partie III du Code Canadien du Travail?

Of 23 respondents:    De 23 réponses :

2(b) If yes, for which of the following reasons:
(Please rank your responses from 1 to 5 with 1 being the most important reason and 5 being the least important)

Si oui, pour lesquelles des raisons suivantes:
(prière de graduer vos réponses de 1 à 5, le chiffre 1 constituant la raison la plus importante et le chiffre 5, la raison la moins importante)

The 18 respondents ranked the choices in the following order of importance:
Les résultats de 18 réponses suit en ordre d'importance :

1. You don't believe it pays enough i.e. $500 per day
2. You are "too busy"
3. You dislike doing Part III cases because they are "messier" than dismissal of unionized employees
4. You have done your quota for the year

1. Vous ne croyez pas que c'est suffisamment payé (i.e. $500.00 par jour)
2. Vous êtes trop occupé(e)
3. Vous n'aimez pas arbitrer des cas en vertu de la Partie III parce qu'ils sont plus désordonnés que des congédiements d'employés syndiqués.
4. Vous avez complété votre quota de mandats pour l'année

3) A number of these cases involve unrepresented complainants and unrepresented employers or combinations of both. What steps have you taken to deal with unrepresented parties?

Un certain nombre de ces cas impliquent des plaignants non représentés par une autre personne, des employeurs non représentés par une autre personne, ou une combinaison des deux. Quelles démarches avez-vous faites pour composer avec des parties non représentées ?

See the attached qualitative responses.
Voir les réponses qualificatives attachées.

4(a) Do you think this is a good training area for aspiring arbitrators?

Croyez-vous que ces cas constituent un bon entraînement pour des aspirants-arbitres ?

Of 24 respondents:    De 24 réponses :

4(b) If yes, would you be prepared to have one observe you in a Part III hearing(s)?

Si oui, seriez-vous prêt à accepter quelqu'un pour vous observer durant une audition en vertu de la Partie III ?

Of 17 respondents:    De 17 réponses :

5) The Arthurs' Commission is interested in your experiences, either positive or negative, in this area. Please take the time to provide us with some of your own experiences in these kinds of cases.

La Commission Arthurs est intéressée à connaître vos expériences en ce domaine, qu'elles soient négatives ou positives. Pourriez-vous prendre le temps de nous informer de quelques-unes de vos propres expériences dans ce genre de cas.

See the attached qualitative responses.
Voir les réponses qualificatives attachées.

6) Please provide us with any other comments, including your suggestions or recommendations for improvement.

Pourriez-vous nous faire connaître tout autres commentaires, y incluant vos suggestions ou recommandations, pour améliorer la situation.

See the attached qualitative responses.
Voir les réponses qualificatives attachées.

Individual Qualitative Responses

[français]

3. A number of these cases involve unrepresented complainants and unrepresented employers or combinations of both. What steps have you taken to deal with unrepresented parties?
   Un certain nombre de ces cas impliquent des plaignants non représentés par une autre personne, des employeurs non représentés par une autre personne, ou une combinaison des deux. Quelles démarches avez-vous faites pour composer avec des parties non représentées ?
   • Have taken the time to explain the process, onus, methods by which testimony/evidence can be presented, etc. It seems that unrepresented complainants feel they can call me with questions ex parte and I have to explain repeatedly not to do so and to put any queries or requests in writing with a copy to the other side. If it is just a procedural issue, I try to inform the other side of the nature of the contact and my response. Some clarification sent out to unrepresented parties about the obligation of the adjudicator not to engage in ex parte communication of any substance would be helpful.
   • I have tried to carefully explain the process, and given an unrepresented party a lot of leeway. Although unsure of procedure, I have often found complainants and respondents to be quite competent regarding questioning a witness and in establishing the points that they need to make.
   • I believe an information sheet should be sent to all parties before the hearing regarding what to expect at a hearing, and what their rights are.
   • I make a point of explaining the process to unrepresented parties. I also try to ensure that the other side does not take advantage of their lack of knowledge of the rules of evidence.
   • I do try to mediate the dispute where the parties agree to this. This is often difficult if one of the parties is unrepresented. The cases can be quite satisfying, however, when there is a mutual resolution. If the employee is unrepresented, it is difficult to consider damages beyond lost wages due to their unfamiliarity with the legal requirements.
   • Sought consent of other (represented) party to a certain amount of intervention to keep the matter on track and to ensure justice is seen to be done.
   • Swear everyone who is in the room, explain procedures (who goes first, who speaks last etc), explain evidence and then arguments, explain why they need documents and for people to testify.
   • Advise regarding procedure, right to call witnesses, cross-examine other party's witnesses etc.
   • Usually I convene a conference call in advance of the hearing to discuss the process to be followed, who should bring what etc.
   • I did two or three of these cases years ago. As I recall, it was necessary to play an inquisitorial role to ensure that the complainant understood the legal setting and presented the whatever evidence might support his or her case
   • This has not been a problem for me. I can't recall conducting any hearings where either party was unrepresented although there have been instances where counsel were only engaged as the hearing date approached.
   • I advise unrepresented parties at the commencement of the hearing that my role is to adjudicate, and that as a result I can't act as their lawyer. I can't tell them what evidence to tender, which witnesses to call, or the questions that should be asked of the witnesses. I explain that it would be inconsistent with my role as neutral adjudicator to act as an advocate for either party. I do explain the process typically followed in much the same fashion as the guide of the FMCS does i.e. opening statements, who goes first to tender evidence, how cross examination follows examination in chief, closing arguments etc.
   • 1. Rappel du droit á être représenteé.
     2. Exposé sommaure de la nature du recours et du rôle de l'arbitre et de l'effet de la décision.
     3. Exposé sommaire de la procédure et des moyens de preuve.
     4. On procède.
   • Aucune! Quand le patron et la salarié se confrontent, ils (c'est-à-dire l'un et l'autre) devraient savoir que le débat est important et qu'il peut entraîner des déboursés très importants qui devraient les inspirer à 'savoir ce qu'ils font'.

5. The Arthurs' Commission is interested in your experiences, either positive or negative, in this area. Please take the time to provide us with some of your own experiences in these kinds of cases.
   La Commission Arthurs est intéressée à connaître vos expériences en ce domaine, qu'elles soient négatives ou positives. Pourriez-vous prendre le temps de nous informer de quelques-unes de vos propres expériences dans ce genre de cas.
   • The most difficult cases to handle tend to be where the employer is represented by legal counsel and the complainant is not. Cases involving small employers where neither side is represented tend to move along quickly and informally and usually take less than a full day to complete.
   • I find the Federal pre-hearing process poor, but this varies with the quality of the investigator. The Feds send out reams of stuff on how to bill them (which at their rates takes more time to read than it is worth. However they have no layperson's guide to the process. A lot of cases arise from First Nations, and I think more effort could be made to recruit 1st nations adjudicators.
   • Fees closer to market rates; possibly some sort of advocates office or legal aid for parties.
   • In general, I have found unrepresented parties to be at a considerable disadvantage, even with the arbitrator staving off the sharks.
   • Many of the cases settle prior to the hearing. For this reason these cases may not be particularly useful as a good training area.
   • I believe it is very necessary for experienced arbitrators to accept these appointments to protect the integrity of the process.
   • When both parties are represented by counsel, the hearings usually go as smoothly as possible and the relevant evidence and arguments are presented. The problem arises when only one party is represented (usually the employer). Adjudicator's walk a fine line in assuring that all relevant evidence is presented while not appearing to aid in the presentation of such evidence. A discussion at the beginning of the hearing about what is to be expected and the adjudicator's role I find to be helpful.
   • These cases are messy, especially if one or both sides are unrepresented. The complainant often sees me as his or her advocate and contacts me directly. In these cases, I contact both parties, explain I will be mediating, and ask permission to hold separate talks with the two sides. Often mediation does resolve the dispute, especially if the complainant doesn't want to return to the job and is looking only for money.
   • I often try to mediate these cases, and I am never quite sure of my authority to do so. I'd like that to be made clear one way or the other. I also would like to have easy electronic access to Labour Code decisions for research purposes. Especially when parties' are unrepresented, it would be nice to have access to the relevant jurisprudence.
   • The HRDC offices that we are required to use are a real negative. The hearing rooms are small with no amenities - not even water. They may set up okay for meetings (because of narrow tables) but are really inadequate for hearings. Some arbitrators won't use them. I have, but it has been a true deterrent. The fee is really low, given the frustrations involved (i.e., unrepresented parties; poor facilities).
   • I have not handled any cases under Part 3 in the last couple of years but I don't recall any particular problems from previous hearings.
   • There may be a need for more public education to inform an employee of their rights. I have not experienced any problems with these cases.
   • My experience is not dissimilar to arbitrations generally. Usually counsel I meet are likewise engaged in arbitrations involving provincial legislation.
   • For some reason that the Ministry will not explain, I was dropped from the list several years ago. I haven't pressed the matter since the compensation is not particularly good, and they are difficult to manage. One problem I had when I did these cases was that the appellants tried to tell me their story when I called them for arrangements. I spent a bit of time telling them what to expect.
   • In the past 12 years, I have done only 2 unjust dismissal adjudications. The two unjust dismissal cases were uneventful, as both parties were represented by counsel. Having to schedule the hearing at a federal building office location to save costs was trying, and the locations used were unsuitable. Although I'm sympathetic to cost savings, and the desire for a more flexible, less formal adjudicative forum, it detracts from the adjudicative process to have to conduct a hearing in cramped office space, sitting on uncomfortable chairs. In my opinion, the parties also view the process differently if a certain decorum is not maintained, and the physical location is a part and parcel of that "decorum".
   • It has been years since I did one, which was very unsatisfying. At the end of a hearing in which a discharged employee was successful, I asked what remedy he wanted, to which he replied he felt he should have at least two weeks pay in lieu of notice. I didn't feel I could jump in and tell him he could have reinstatement with full compensation.
   • L'employeur ne se présente pas, quoique dûment convoqué; vérification auprès du Service des relations de travail de la compagnie; poursuite de l'audition en l'absence de l'employeur. L'employeur a déclaré faillite quelques jours plus tard.
6. Please provide us with any other comments, including your suggestions or recommendations for improvement.
   Pourriez-vous nous faire connaître tout autres commentaires, y incluant vos suggestions ou recommandations, pour améliorer la situation.
   • 1. The Department of Labour should explain the role of the adjudicator to the parties (they probably already do this). Maybe have a one page list of "do's and don'ts" regarding the role of the adjudicator.
     2. Raise the fees if you want to use experienced neutrals.
     3. Don't make political appointments. The parties deserve an arbitrator who knows what he or she is doing or at least someone with appropriate training. Appropriate training is not a legal degree in an unrelated specialty (eg. real estate) and donations to the party in power. Adopt the system used in Alberta where arbitrators are chosen by computer from a list of acceptable neutrals.
     
     
     
     1. I'd like to see a clear mediation/arbitration mandate.
     2. I'd like to be able to book the hearing at a location other than the HRDC building, or have them improved substantially.
     3. I'd like an information sheet sent to all parties outlining what to expect at the hearing (or mediation) and what their respective rights and obligations are.
     4. I'd like to be compensated more appropriately.
     5. I'd like easy, free access to CLC jurisprudence.
   • The new document sent out to the parties by HRDC when assigning the case is helpful in explaining part of the process. Some explanation of the fact that the adjudicator knows very little or nothing about the case, and should not be contacted to discuss the case specifics would be a good addition to that document. The unjust dismissal guide also references the fact that the adjudicator will probably direct pre-hearing disclosure. It does not indicate that either party should/must request this type of action before it being ordered. This should be clarified.
   • Adjudicators and referees should only be selected from the respective lists maintained by the provincial Ministry of Labour in each province. As does the Ontario Ministry, the FMCS could perhaps consult arbdates.com to determine availability in advance.
   • The suggestion/requirement to use Federal space because of cost should be done away with.
   • Delays can arise when an employer seeks to rely on the complainant's prior disciplinary record as partial justification for discharge but the complainant challenges the propriety of the prior discipline.Under the Code there is no mechanism by which an employee can challenge a written warning or suspension at the time it is imposed.
   • I don't think it's a good training ground because you can't rely on the parties to know what they are doing. You need to guide them and the process and to fully explain how and why the hearing is seen as it is.
   • I think in many of these cases lining up more than one case in a day would be worthwhile. They are often, but not always, quite simple. Perhaps in major cities sign up 2 or 3 adjudicators and have them hear 6 cases on a first come first served basis, or have one of the 3 try to mediate the cases first with those not settled going to the others for hearing (A model used in South Africa).
   • Completion of evaluation form re. process and jurisdiction by the parties.
   • Pay reasonable fees; Use legal aid, law students or union reps as duty counsel for the unrepresented.
   • Until the remuneration level is increased to a reasonable level I think that full-time, experienced arbitrators will not fully participate in the process.
   • Rénumération inadequate; Peu de collaboration pour offrir salles, par min. fédéral
   • Sortir la politique partisane des nominations des arbitres au fédéral, afin de garder ne serait-ce qu'un semblant de competence et de sérieux et mieux rénumérer les 'pros' qui acceptant d'en faire.
   • 1. Rénumération améliorée; tariff de base à augmenter et payer le temps réel, en plus des dépenses encourues.
     2. Plus d'information, par Travail-Canada, de la nature du recours, des pouvoirs de l'arbitre, de la nature et des effets de la décision arbitrale à venire.
     3. Standardiser les infos sur le droit à la presentation par une personne.