[1983] OLRB Rep. June 979
0039-83-R Royal Ontario Museum Curatorial Association, Applicant, v. The Royal Ontario Museum, Respondent, v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Intervener
BEFORE: N. B. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman and Board Members W. Gibson and C. Ballentine.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 20, 1983
The Board, differently constituted, issued a decision May 2nd, 1983 in which a Board Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of certain persons whom the respondent claims exercise managerial functions within the meaning of section l(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. An Officer was appointed for this purpose and has been conducting an examination into the duties and responsibilities of those persons. In a letter dated June 17th, 1983 from counsel for the respondent, counsel seeks to have another Officer substituted because of a perceived bias contrary to the interests of the respondent. Counsel has also requested an opportunity to lead evidence before the Board to establish the allegation of bias. This is an interim decision dealing with the allegation and the request for a hearing before the Board.
A Board Officer appointed by the Board to inquire into and report to the Board on the duties and responsibilities of employees makes no findings of fact or law. The Officer’s function is to examine the persons at issue and to allow full opportunity to the parties to cross-examine these persons and to allow the parties to call their own witnesses to be examined and cross-examined by the parties. The Officer makes a verbatim report of the evidence from these examinations and files it with the Board. That report is a verbatim transcript of the evidence and nothing more. The Officer makes no recommendations to the Board with respect to the disposition of the issues into which the examination was conducted.
The parties are given the opportunity to make full submissions to the Board on the accuracy of the report and/or the conclusions to be reached by the Board on the basis of the facts contained in the report. It is the panel of the Board which is assigned to receive those submissions, and not the Board Officer, which will make all decisions affecting the parties.
Even were the Board to accept, and it does not, that the Board Officer in this case is in some way biased against the interests of the respondent, there is nothing in counsel's submissions to suggest that the evidence which will appear in the transcript which forms the Officer's report in any way has been affected by the alleged bias.
Having regard for all of the foregoing, the Board is not prepared to convene a hearing into the respondent's allegations in this regard. Accordingly, the Board Officer is directed to continue the examination on the dates and at the times scheduled for it.