THE SCARLET LETTER
HARRIS & COMPANY (representing the employer)
Judith C. Anderson
Direct No. (604)891-2219
Our File 666045.998
February 7, 1996
Labour Relations Board
1125 Howe Street
Attention: Margaret Arthur
Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
Re: Callow v. The Board of School Trustees of
School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) et al
BCCA No. CA020560
We are counsel for the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 45 (West Vancouver) in the above-noted matter.
We note from Mr. Callow's complaint (p.3(t)) that he seeks from the Labour Relations Board a direction that the Association "take the necessary action to continue the arbitration within the parameters of the 1988 Court of Appeal decision."
It is the School Board's strongly held view that the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to make any ruling regarding the hearing of a future arbitration hearing due to the fact that the arbitration was not a proceeding under the scheme provided in the Labour Relations Code, the former Industrial Relations Act, or the former Labour Code. Instead, the arbitration in question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985 (N.B. withdrawn in the 1990's probably due to this letter R.C.), whch the Labour Relations Board has no jurisdiction to interpret or apply.
We request that the School Board be provided with an opportunity to make further submissions on this point prior to any granting of any remedy.
Yours very truly
HARRIS & COMPANY
(signed Judith C. Anderson)
cc Roger Callow
cc Hordo & Ross
Attn: Daniel Fetterly
1) If this letter is accurate, and there is no means of telling otherwise, as the Labour Board and later, the Supreme Court of Canada, did not hold either a Section 12 hearing nor an appeal on the inherent jurisdiction of Unions, then where did the Union link come from?
2) Justice Southin who quashed the arbitration and re-directed the matter back to re-arbitration studiously avoided any reference to the role of the Union hence the sole responsibility to re-arbitrate fell to the School Board. They did nothing.
3) In 1995, I went before Justice Spencer to request that the should return employment to me of Justice Southin after the Board rejected her recommendation, to must return employment with all terms of the collective agreement to apply due to abandonment of this issue by the Board. He did nothing.
4) Spencer's claim that this matter was between the Board and the Union to decide my fate is erroneous under the terms of the above letter, and again, due to no hearings held as noted above, the entire B.C. Judiciary committed themselves to this lie.
5) Spencer's additional point that I was bound by any agreement signed between the Employer and Union would, under the conditions of the above letter, be promoting fraudulent behaviour on the part of the Union because they had no such power.
6) My request that the Union turn full power of authority over to me (I believed that I had always had that power before the courts) was therefore redundant. With that much said, signing such 'illusory' powers to me would have satisfied the court and, considering that I was prepared to pay my own costs, there is no factual reason why the Union filibustered the progress of this case.
7) It further appears that the Union in joining forces with the Employer in such as applying for legal costs in court from me and in which I had no standing (because the B.C. courts declared the Union to represent my interests) is now a case of extortion by the Union abetted by the court knowing full well my written objections.
8) Hicks, Morley et al, the Employer's Ottawa Representative, has been very careful not to suggest that the Union represents my interests. Similarly, the Federal Court in earlier proceedings, did not refer to the Union connection.
9) In short, from a legal standpoint, the Union representation of my case has been 'gratuitous' in terms of the above letter as they did not have any legal power to act in this case although it is to be noted that without their financial support in the arbitration and the ensuing court challenge which I initiated, I would not have been able to challenge this government conspiracy.
10) As such, the Federal Court may now act on the same request that I made to Justice Spencer in 1985; namely, that I be returned to employment with all conditions of the contract to apply.
11) As for the Employer, they may even make money out of the $6 million requested settlement by suing the court (Justice Southin should have quashed BILL 35 for being ultra vires) suing the government for passing the ill-though out BILL 35 and the arbitrator(d) for creating this injustice as well as the Union for claiming a false power that they did not have.
12) The Justice System of Canada, in any event, has been flushed down the toilet, amid copious evidence of fraud against all parties associated with this 29 year unresolved case in which no compensation has been paid.