[1984] OLRB Rep. March 399
2023-83-M The Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1, Applicant, v. The Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto Inc. and Acadian Bricklayers Ltd., Respondents
BEFORE: Ian C. Springate, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members F W. Murray and C. A. Ballentine.
APPEARANCES: M. Ball and John Meiorin for the applicant; David R. Roth well and Len Carrado for the respondents.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 26, 1984
This is a referral of a grievance to the Board pursuant to section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.
At a hearing held on March 7, 1984 the applicant requested that the Board issue warrants for the arrest of four individuals who had each been served with a summons to witness but who had failed to attend at the hearing. To date, that is the only issue dealt with by the Board.
It is now established that when dealing with referrals under section 124 of the Act, the Board has the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses as a Court of Record in civil cases, including the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person who has failed to appear when duly served with a summons. See: section 3(2)(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, section 103(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, Re International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers Local 95 and Master Insulators Association of Ontario et al 1979 CanLII 1622 (ON HCJ), 25 O.R. (2d) 8, and Casalbil Contractor Limited [19801 OLRB Rep. Sept. 1278. Because it is a serious matter affecting the liberty of the individual, the Board has indicated that, it will exercise its power to issue an arrest warrant with caution and fairness. See: Standard Insulation Limited, [1984] OLRB Rep. Feb 383.
The evidence led in this matter establishes that the four individuals in question were each served with a summons to witness in reasonable time to allow them to attend at the Board hearing. However, instead of being provided with the appropriate amount of conduct money in cash, they were each provided with a cheque for the amount. The use of cheques causes us some concern. A witness is entitled to actual receipt of conduct money prior to being required to attend at a Board hearing. Banks, however, are not always open at convenient times to allow a cheque to be cashed. Further, individuals without a bank account may find themselves unable to cash a cheque. Even people with an account may be required to wait until a cheque has cleared before actually receiving the amount represented by the cheque. Problems may also arise due to a lack of sufficient funds in an account to cover a cheque. A stoppayment might be issued with respect to a cheque. Given all of these considerations, we do not believe it appropriate to issue warrants for the arrest of an individual who has been given a cheque rather than cash when being served with a summons to witness. Accordingly, the Board declines to issue warrants for the arrest of the individuals in question.
On or about March 8, 1984 the parties were advised by telephone that the Board would not be issuing arrest warrants. This was done to provide the applicant with sufficient time to properly summons the individuals in question to the continuation of hearing set for March 27, 1984.
This panel of the Board has not heard any evidence with respect to the merits of the case. Accordingly, it is not seized with the referral.