THE SCARLET LETTER
HARRIS
& COMPANY (representing the employer)
Judith C. Anderson
Direct
No. (604)891-2219
Our File 666045.998
February 7, 1996
via Courier
Labour Relations Board
1125 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC
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question was a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the School Amendment Act, 1985 (N.B. withdrawn in the 1990's probably due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
cc Client
RESPONSE
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.