[1982] OLRB Rep. August 1122
1793-80-JD Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1036, Complainants, v. Anchor Shoring Limited and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 446, Respondents.
BEFORE: M. G. Picher, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and H. Kobryn.
APPEARANCES: A. M. Minsky and T. Neil for the complainants; Douglas J. Wrav, Matti Rissamen and Karl Ball for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August, 5, 1982
I. This is a jurisdictional dispute application under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act. The parties have gone through the Board's pre-hearing conference process designed to clarify the facts and issues. That process being concluded the applicant now requests leave to withdraw its application. The respondent submits that in these circumstances the application should be dismissed.
The purpose of the pre-hearing process in jurisdictional disputes is primarily to define the work in dispute, clarify the positions of the parties and to determine which facts are disputed and which are agreed. A by-product of the process is the opportunity for partial and sometimes entire settlement of the dispute without the necessity of a hearing. In jurisdictional disputes in particular the facts are often not fully known to the unions involved. Pre-hearing exchanges of alleged facts and positions can be of significant help in resolving a dispute or, in some cases, leading the parties to the conclusion that there is no dispute at all.
In our view that is a process to be promoted to the fullest extent. Our recent experience with pre-hearing meetings in jurisdictional disputes confirms our belief that they are a positive innovation in the resolution of these kinds of conflicts. Settlements whether in the form of withdrawals of applications after the discovery of the pre-hearing process or otherwise, are to be encouraged. Declaring a winner and a loser when an applicant seeks to withdraw after the pre-hearing process would not advance that end. As counsel for the respondent noted, the dismissal of an application without a hearing could create in the eyes of the labour relations community an impression of an affirmative determination after recourse to this Board. That possibility could discourage settlements by withdrawal, and could indeed discourage unions making use of the jurisdictional dispute application in the first place. That in turn could cause unions objecting to an employer's assignment of work to resort to more disruptive self-help measures. That is precisely what the jurisdictional dispute provisions of the Act are meant to avoid. Labour relations stability is better served if a union concerned about its work jurisdiction knows it can initiate and later withdraw from a jurisdictional dispute proceeding on a "without prejudice" basis. Given these considerations we see little reason to favour the dismissal of a jurisdictional dispute application when the applicant union seeks to withdraw after the pre-hearing discovery process.
It is true that parties should not be put to defending a case before the Board, even on a pre-hearing basis, when an application is patently groundless. There is, however, no suggestion either in this case or generally, that unions deliberately file jurisdictional dispute complaints on spurious or merely speculative grounds. The Board has ample latitude, in any event, to deal with abuse of its process.
For the foregoing reasons the Board sees no reason in this case, or in similar cases in the future, to register a dismissal. The application is therefore withdraw by leave of the Board.