A last ditch attempt by laundry workers at Sudbury Hospital Services to save their jobs was given some life earlier this month by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
In a ruling handed down April 20, the board refused to dismiss a charge of unfair labour practices filed by CUPE and its Local, 2841.
The dispute centres on a decision by Health Sciences North to switch to a different provider for its laundry services – Hamilton-based Mohawk Shared Services — in a move the hospital expects will save $500,000 a year.
The company, with a head office in Burlington and facilities in Hamilton, provides laundry services for hospitals across the province.
But the decision meant that 38 workers in Sudbury, many of whom had been with SHS for decades, lost their jobs late last month.
The union filed labour board charges as a result.
“The applicant, which has a collective agreement with SHS, contends that the Hospital and SHS have together schemed to rid SHS of both the applicant and the collective agreement to which SHS and the applicant are bound,” the board decision says.
In response, HSN and SHS argued the charges should be dismissed because it failed to make a prima facie case. In other words, they argued that even on the face of it, without any contrary evidence, the union failed to provide information that would seem to prove their case.
However, citing previous rulings, the board said the bar for making a prima facie case isn't particularly high, and that the board should err on the side of allowing such cases to proceed.
In it's arguments, the union contended that HSN unduly used its influence to force SHS to shutter.
“The Hospital itself has publicly recognized that it has 'significant influence' on SHS in its 2014 financial statement, and in SHS's 2014 Financial Statement, SHS noted that its 'ability to continue viable operations is dependent upon maintaining its status as a primary laundry service provider for the Health Sciences North,'” the transcript reads.
“This is clearly so because the bylaws of SHS prohibit it from providing laundry or any other services to any other entity without the prior approval of HSN, and from engaging in any other activity, business or operation aside from its core function of providing laundry services to HSN without the prior approval of HSN.”
And considering workers at Mohawk are paid similar wages to staff at SHS, and that the hospital will now have to transport the linen from southern Ontario, the union argues the hospital won't save money.
“Accordingly, it would appear that the cost of providing laundry services will be at least as much at Mohawk as at SHS, without regard for the cost of trucking linens back and forth a 900km round trip,” the transcript says. “(And) HSN has a considerable ownership stake in Mohawk. As such, HSN benefits financially from increasing work at Mohawk, and benefits from suppressing the terms and conditions of employment of employees of Mohawk.”
While the hospital rejects the claims, the board ruled that rather than having no case, the hospital was arguing the union has a weak case. That may be true, but it's not enough to halt the proceeding, the board ruled.
“The hospital may well be right that it has a strong defence or that the applicant’s case is less than robust, but that is not the test that applies for the purposes of this motion,” the transcript says.
“The threshold to establish a prima facie case is not a high one. The applicant is not required to have a strong case to meet that threshold. I therefore decline to dismiss the application without a hearing on the bases argued by the responding parties.”
