[1986] OLRB Rep. April 507
0507-85-R; 0508-85-R; 0509-85-R; 0510-85-R; 0841-85-R International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, Applicant, v. Harnden & King Construction Ltd., Respondent, v. Group of Employees, Objectors
[This decision was inadvertently omitted from the February, 1986 issue: Editor]
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members I. M. Stamp and H. Kobryn.
APPEARANCES: S. B. D. Wahl, J. Slaughter, F. Amis and G. Steers for the applicant; Bruce Binning and Grant Robinson for the respondent; Peter M. Whalen, Louis Doucette and Barry McCracken for the objectors.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 7, 1986
These are a series of applications for certification that came on for hearing before the Board on January 23, 1986. During the course of the hearing, a preliminary motion was made by counsel for the applicant with respect to the filings made by the respondent in these certification proceedings.
After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Board issued the following oral ruling:
The applicant's preliminary motion is dismissed. In our view, what took place before the Labour Relations Officer on the day these matters first came before the Board did not result in an agreement on the parties' respective positions in these matters. The parties' positions were discussed with the Officer and challenges were made to the lists. While the Labour Relations Officer may have recorded the parties' views, the Board, differently constituted, subsequently issued decisions appointing a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report back to the Board on the list and composition of the bargaining unit in each of the applications to which this decision relates.
Thus, whatever the position of the parties may have been in front of the Labour Relations Officer prior to the Board appointing an Officer to inquire into the issues in dispute, it appears to us that the Board, differently constituted, in making such a broad appointment, was cognizant of the complexities of determining the composition of the bargaining units in these applications. Therefore, the Board will proceed with these applications based on the positions taken by the parties as of the commencement of the inquiry by the Labour Relations Officer into the list and composition of the bargaining unit.
At the hearing of this matter, the Board recognized that the dispute over the parties' respective positions arose, in part, due to the rather informal process followed by the parties and the Officer in these cases on the first day that this matter was scheduled for hearing. The Board indicated to the parties that they could have asked to review the report that the Officer would make to the Board, agree to and sign it. The Board understood that this was not the normal practice of parties that regularly appeared before the Board at the time this matter arose; nevertheless, at the request of any party, the Officer should review his report with the parties before submitting it to the Board and request the parties to sign it, or at the very least, note on the report that that review has taken place. If that had been done in this case, the dispute before this panel of the Board with respect to the positions taken by the parties could have been avoided. In any event, if any party has a concern that the subtleties of its position will not be conveyed to the Board, that party is free to exercise its right to make representations directly to the Board.
When the Board formally appoints a Labour Relations Officer to conduct inquiries after the parties have met with an Officer on the first day a matter is scheduled for hearing, as was done in these cases, the Board makes the appointment based upon the report it receives about the parties' meeting with Officer from the Officer. The Board decisions appointing a Labour Relations Officer were not specific with respect to the issues that the parties advised us they clarified at their initial meeting with the Officer. A party could have asked the Board to reconsider and vary the decisions appointing the officer so that they precisely set out the issues in dispute. That was not done by any of the parties in this proceeding.
These matters are referred to the Registrar to be relisted for hearing before this panel of the Board.