THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE. [5] On July 22, 2020, the Hospitals wrote to the Board requesting that we convene a hearing to resolve an issue that had arisen with respect to our amendment to Article 14.06, which now requires Hospitals to provide nurses with double time for a call back. In the correspondence, the Hospitals advise that the parties disagree as to “what circumstances constitute a call back.” The Hospitals assert that this dispute requires determination in order to “implement the Board’s award.” The Hospitals requested that the Board convene a hearing in order to resolve the dispute. [6] On July 31, 2020, XXX wrote to the Board objecting to the Hospitals’ request that the Board reconvene to address the issue raised in the July 22, 2020 correspondence. XXX takes the position that the Board does not have jurisdiction to entertain the new issue raised by the Hospitals. ONA submits that the Board is functus of any issue relating to Article 14.06. [7] The Board scheduled a hearing and both parties filed extensive written submissions. The hearing was held by videoconference on August 18, 2020, at which time the parties made oral submissions. After hearing the submissions, the Board requested that the parties provide additional information with respect to the nature of grievances that were filed for the payment of call back and clarification with respect to retroactive payments made by the Hospitals for call back under Article 14.06. [8] The parties filed written submissions on August 25 (Hospitals), September 11 (ONA) and September 15, 2020 (Hospitals).1 [9] In the Hospitals’ August 25, 2020 submission, they indicate that 116 Hospitals responded to a request for additional information. A table was provided indicating the following responses: Yes No Hospital has paid out retro including callback for period Apr. 1 – Jun. 8, 2020 109 7 Callback retro payments implemented based on Participating Hospitals’ position 114 2 Union has filed grievance related to implementation of callback payments 12 104 [10] The Hospitals indicate, in their submission, that a total of 32 grievances have been filed with respect to call back across 12 Hospitals since the issuing of our June 8, 2020 Award. In 16 of the grievances there is a claim for call back payment prior to June 8, 2020.
THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE. The Parties agree that under Section 6.1 (b) of the Collaborative Research Agreement (“CRA”) between Celator and the BCCA, dated 11 May 2001, Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxx (“Bally”) and Xx. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx (“Xxxxx”) are to be considered BCCA inventors in respect to any Royalty-Bearing Patent on which they are named; that a Royalty-Bearing Patent means any patent that claims all or any part of any Prior Intellectual Property or any Celator-Sponsored Intellectual Property; that Celator-Sponsored Intellectual Property means intellectual property arising from the performance of the work under the CRA in the Fields of Research; and that Work means the research and development activities performed by BCCA under the CRA during the Term as specified in one or more R&D Work Schedules, including the performance of the Services and provision of the Deliverables therefore The Parties agree that the claims in the CPX -1 applications are properly considered Celator Intellectual Property, and therefore are part of potential Royalty-Bearing Patents under the CRA. The parties agree that under the terms of the CRA, Bally and Xxxxx will assign their interest to BCCA, and that the milestones set out in Exhibit C to the CRA have been met, thus obligating BCCA to assign its rights to Celator under Section 83(b) of the CRA. The Parties do not agree that the inventions claimed in the CombiPlex™ applications, Drug Resistance applications and the Individualized Therapy applications constitute Celator Intellectual Property under the CRA, and thus do not agree on the issue of whether any patents to issue on such applications are Royalty-Bearing Patents BCCA’s position is that these applications claim Celator-Sponsored Intellectual Property based on Work performed by BCCA inventors, Drs. Bally and Xxxxx, under the CRA. Therefore, the patents issuing from them would be Royalty Bearing Patents under the CRA and Section 6.1 (b) if the CRA does apply Celator’s position is that these applications are inventions that are not Celator-Sponsored Intellectual Property, were independent of research and development activities performed by BCCA under the CRA and that, therefore, the patents issuing on them will not be Royalty Bearing Patents and the designation of Bally and Xxxxx as BCCA inventors under Section 6.1 (b) is not applicable., Resolution Since no agreement by the Parties with regard to the foregoing dispute appears possible, the Parties hereby agree to resolve the disputed assignment issues, independ...
THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE. Resolution Clauses at Issue
