Supplementary Statistical Performance Information–Fiscal Year 2008–09

Complex Matters

The Canada Industrial Relations Board's (the CIRB or the Board) workload and disposition rate continues to be affected by the relative large number of more complex matters, which typically involve lengthy hearings and numerous provisions of the Code. Such cases are both longer to process and require more of the Board's resources for their disposition. Chart 1 indicates that complex cases have generally accounted for 85 or more of the number of matters disposed per year over the last five fiscal years, representing more than 10% of all disposed cases. Applications involving a sale of business are usually particularly complex, and represent 40 of the 85 complex matters resolved in 2008–09, significantly more than in previous years.

Chart 1–Number of Complex Matters Disposed

Expedited Matters

In addition to complex cases, the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2001 stipulate that certain types of matters require priority attention. These cases include requests for an interim order/decision, requests to file Board orders in Court, referrals to the Board by the Minister of Labour relating to the maintenance of activities during a legal work stoppage, applications alleging an invalid strike or lockout vote, applications for a declaration of unlawful strike or lockout, and unfair labour practice complaints alleging the use of replacement workers or dismissal for union activities. Such matters are scheduled, heard and decided in priority to other elements in the Board's caseload. Priority is also given to the processing and consideration of applications for certification, and to any other matter in which there appears to be a significant potential for adverse industrial relations consequences if there is a delay in its resolution.

The setting of priorities inevitably results in the deferral of less urgent matters. Consequently, scheduling pressures can make very lengthy or complex matters—the kind of matters that are now typically scheduled for oral hearing by a panel of the Board—difficult to resolve expeditiously.

Chart 2 sets out the volume of expedited matters and certifications from 2004–05 to 2008–09.

Written Reasons for Decision

The Board strives to provide timely and legally sound decisions that are also consistent across similar matters, in order to establish strong and clear jurisprudence, which in turn should reduce the likelihood of requests for reconsideration, as well as reducing the likelihood of judicial review applications to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Board's experience in issuing detailed Reasons for decision and summary letter decisions in the last five fiscal years is reflected in Chart 3. On average, the CIRB has issued 35 of the more detailed Reasons for decision each year over the last five years, and 209 letter decisions, for a total of 244 written decisions on average. This output increased significantly in 2008-09, as the Board produced 40 Reasons for Decision and 303 letter decisions, for a total of 343 written decisions.

Applications for Judicial Review

Chart 4 shows the pattern of judicial reviews over the last five fiscal years, and indicates that 19 judicial reviews were filed in 2008–09, representing 2.3% of all matters disposed of by the Board in that year. With respect to the outcome of the reviews before the Court, the Board's decisions have been upheld in all cases except one in the last five fiscal years (in 2008–09).

Chart 4–Applications for Judicial Review

Number and Processing Time of Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) Complaints

Chart 5 shows the evolution of the disposition of DFR complaints according to the different initiatives that were put in place. It indicates that, irrespective of the processing regime, the Board resolved a total of 272 DFR complaints in 2008–09, which is substantially higher than in any previous year. Furthermore, the new procedures put into place on March 1, 2008, have had the desired effect, as the average processing time for 2008–09 stands at 118 days, which is substantially lower than the average processing time for complaints received in other periods and in other fiscal years. Also, given that the backlog of DFR complaints filed before March 1, 2008, has almost been cleared, the average processing time of DFR complaints should fall considerably in 2009–10. Since DFRs usually represent a significant portion of matters disposed in a given year, it is expected that the overall average processing time will also decline.

Chart 5–Number and Processing Time of DFR Complaints According to the Date Complaint Received