Bill Brady

The applicant union brought applications alleging a sale of business and unfair labour practices against the responding trucking companies.

One of the responding companies, Supply Chain Express Inc. (SCE), raised a constitutional question, arguing its operations were federally regulated under the Canada Labour Code because it engaged in inter-provincial transportation.

The Board examined SCE's operations and found it carried on two separate, unintegrated undertakings: a general freight business that operated inter-provincially (federally regulated) and a dedicated grocery delivery business that operated entirely within Ontario (provincially regulated).

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction over the provincial grocery delivery undertaking and directed the hearings to continue with respect to that portion of the business.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding ongoing applications involving Supply Chain Express Inc. and Wilson's Truck Lines Limited.

The employer had commenced interprovincial trucking operations and argued its labour relations were now governed by federal legislation.

Noting an impending Divisional Court judicial review hearing on the constitutional jurisdiction issue, the Board directed that hearings would resume regardless of the outcome.

The Board instructed the parties to prepare submissions on how a potential finding of federal jurisdiction by the Canada Industrial Relations Board would affect the Board's ability to adjudicate alleged past violations of the provincial Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the availability of remedies.

The responding party, Supply Chain Express Inc., raised a preliminary objection asserting that its labour relations were governed by federal legislation and that recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code deprived the Ontario Labour Relations Board of jurisdiction to determine its own constitutional jurisdiction.

The Board held that Parliament lacks the constitutional authority to prevent a provincial tribunal from determining its own jurisdiction, as labour relations is a matter of exclusive, not shared, jurisdiction.

The Board also denied a request to adjourn the proceedings pending a potential application for judicial review, noting the lengthy ongoing nature of the hearings.

The applicant union sought an order requiring a non-party, Sobeys Ontario, to produce certain documents prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant had also served a summons on a Sobeys representative.

The responding parties and intervenor objected due to lack of notice.

The Board ruled that it does not have the power under section 111(2)(c) of the Act to order a non-party to produce documents outside of the hearing process.

However, the Board permitted the applicant to summons the individual to appear at the next hearing date, at which time the parties and the summonsed individual could make arguments regarding production and confidentiality.