Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. The Georgian Building Corporation
Citation: [1981] OLRB Rep. March 275 File No.: 0482-80-R Date: March 27, 1981
Applicant: Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 Respondent: The Georgian Building Corporation
Before: R. D. Howe, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members H. J. F. Ade and H. Kobryn.
Appearances: Patricia Conway, Ian Roland, Nicola Barbieri, Mike Mihajlovic and Peter Hitchen for the applicant; Gary Walker, Alan Franklin and Tony Maida for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1The name: "The Georgian Group" appearing in the style of cause of this application as the name of the respondent is amended to read: "The Georgian Building Corporation."
2In this application for certification the applicant filed four combination applications for membership and receipts. The combination applications for membership are signed by the employees and the receipts are countersigned and indicate that a payment of $1.00 has been made within the six-month period immediately preceding the terminal date of the application. The money was collected by one person. The applicant also filed a duly completed Form 54, Declaration Concerning Membership Documents, Construction Industry.
3The respondent filed a reply and a list of employees containing four names on Schedule A, but failed to file specimen signatures.
4By letter dated June 13, 1980, counsel for the respondent advised the Board as follows:
"I suspect and have some evidence of improper activities by the representatives of Local 506. I am prepared to lead evidence to prove this allegation."
By letter dated July 29, 1980, counsel for the respondent further advised the Board as follows:
"...I wish to bring to the Board's attention and to notify you that there appears to have been some improper behaviour when they attempted to organize the employees working on the project. The particulars of this improper behaviour are as follows:
(i) The representative of Local 506 misrepresented the Union that they represented. The employees thought the representatives belonged to Labourer's Local 183;
(ii) The employees thought they were signing proof of membership cards for Local 183;
(iii) The union representative did not collect the required $1.00
In view of the above I will be requesting the Board to appoint an officer to investigate these allegations."
By letter dated July 31, 1980, delivered to counsel for the respondent, the Deputy Registrar of the Board replied to that letter as follows:
"Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of July 29th, 1980, in the above matter, a copy of which has been forwarded to the applicant herein for its information, and your attention is drawn to Section 47 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.
With respect to section one and two of your letters, the Board does not carry out an investigation in respect to the matters raised and it is up to you to raise them at the hearing and be prepared to provide the proof thereto.
With respect to section three, the Board would require further particulars as to the specific person or persons whom you are alleging did not pay the required dollar, before the Board could carry out such an investigation."
5The parties were duly notified by Form 53, Notice of Hearing, Construction Industry that the Board had directed that a hearing be held on August 1, 1980 at the Boardroom, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, commencing at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon (E.D.T.) for the purpose of hearing the evidence and the representations of the parties with respect to all matters arising out of and incidental to the application including the description of the bargaining unit and the respondent's contention that it is a holding company without any employees within the applied for bargaining unit. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent indicated that his client intended to proceed with all of the allegations set forth in his letter of July 29, 1980. After providing the Board with the name of the employee from whom the representative of the applicant allegedly failed to collect the required $1.00, counsel repeated his request that a Board Officer be appointed to investigate the non-pay allegation. He further requested that the hearing be adjourned for one week to enable the respondent to subpoena witnesses to testify concerning the two other allegations contained in his letter of July 29, 1980.
6Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Board should refuse to hear evidence concerning any of the allegations set forth in the aforementioned letter of July 29, 1980, as the respondent had failed to promptly file notice of intention to allege, at the hearing of the application, improper or irregular conduct as required by Rule 47. In support of this submission, counsel noted that the letter was dated only two days prior to the hearing and did not particularize the alleged improper or irregular conduct. In the alternative, counsel contended that if the Board were to permit evidence to be adduced in support of the allegations, the adjournment requested by counsel for the respondent should be denied in order to avoid prejudice to the applicant as a result of delay. However, she reserved the right to request an adjournment in the event that the applicant was surprised by any of the evidence adduced by the respondent, in view of the lack of particularity.
7After recessing to consider the submissions of the parties, a panel of the Board consisting of Vice-Chairman R. D. Howe and Board Members C. A. Ballentine and E. C. Went, made the following ruling at the hearing