[1986] OLRB Rep. May 583
0183-86-M United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18, Applicant, v. Ben Plastering Limited, carrying on business as Belmont Plastering Company, Respondent
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members I. M. Stamp and C. A.
Ballentine.
APPEARANCES: Stanley Simpson and J. Tarbutt for the applicant; Richard J. Nixon and Gaynor Halliwell for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 9, 1986
1. The Board delivered the following ruling orally at its hearing in this matter on May
2, 1986:
This is a referral of a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.
The grievance alleges that on or about the evening of March 18, 1986, and possibly other dates unknown to the union, the respondent had two employees working at its Burlington City Hall job without referral slips and without proving union membership. The applicant alleges such conduct violated article 5 of the acoustic & drywall appendix of the provincial agreement binding on the parties.
During the opening statements from counsel, it became apparent that the applicant's theory of the case involves relatively straight forward allegations of fact, and an interpretation of the mobility, hiring, referral and layoff provisions of article 5 of the acoustic & drywall appendix of the provincial agreement.
Counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant should be restricted to proving the grievance as filed. He submits that the interpretation issues
alluded to by counsel for the applicant do not appear in the grievance and cannot be said to exist latently in that grievance.
In our opinion, a grievance need only particularize the factual allegations that the party filing the grievance asserts constitute a violation of the collective agreement and make some reference to the provisions of the collective agreement that are alleged to have been violated. While the grievance in this case might have been less oblique about the interpretation issues raised, the respondent is not entitled to receive particulars of the theory or analysis the applicant will be relying on to establish its case.
In any event, the respondent has been advised by counsel for the applicant about the nature of the applicant's case.
Furthermore, another grievance alleging a violation of the same article of the agreement that is in issue in this case between these parties has been referred to the Board in Board File No. 0291-86-M and is scheduled for hearing before the Board on May 13, 1986.
Both counsel have advised us that there will be six witnesses in this case, and that two days of hearing will be needed.
Since we have not started to hear any evidence in this case, and will not be able to hear very much evidence if we were to begin today, in view of the late hour, we are hereby adjourning this matter to May 13, 1986 to be listed for hearing before the same panel of the Board that is scheduled to hear the matter in Board File No. 0291-86-M.
We recognize that counsel for the applicant submitted that the issues in these two matters are different, although the same article of the collective agreement is alleged to have been violated. Nevertheless, we believe it appropriate for the panel scheduled to hear these two matters on that day to determine how they will be dealt with.
2. This matter is referred to the Registrar to be listed for hearing on May 13, 1986 before the same panel of the Board that is scheduled to hear the matter in Board File No. 0291-86-M.
3. This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
4. In view of the applicant's request for directions, unless the Board on May 13, 1986, orders that this matter and the matter in Board File No. 0291-86-M be consolidated we hereby direct that this matter (Board File No. 0183-86-M) proceed first on May 13, 1986.