Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1987] OLRB Rep. February 219
2909-86-U International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, Applicant, v. Gaston H. Poulin Contractor Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Ian C. Springate, Alternate Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and R. R. Montague.
APPEARANCES: Stephen Wahl, Murray Gold, Jack Slaughter and Ed Kaplanis for the applicant; no one for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 3, 1987
1This is an application for consent to institute a prosecution of the respondent for an offence under the Labour Relations Act.
2Although the respondent was notified as to the time and place of the hearing scheduled to deal with the application, no one attended at the hearing on behalf of the respondent.
3On October 23, 1986 the applicant filed an application for right of access under the provisions of section 11 of the Act. A hearing was held into the application on November 27, 1986. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached agreement that the Board should issue a direction pursuant to section 11 and also agreed to most of the terms of the order. The parties were in dispute, however, on when the access order should become effective. After hearing the evidence and representations of the parties with respect to this issue, the Board ruled orally that the access order should become effective November 27, 1986. The order was affirmed in a written decision dated December 31, 1986, [1987] OLRB Rep. Jan. 48.
4With respect to the instant application, the applicant's filings allege that on January 21, 1987 and again on January 22, 1987 an official of the applicant sought to gain access to the respondent's premises in accordance with the terms of the Board's order, but was denied access. At the hearing, the applicant contended that a union representative had also been denied access on January 23, 1987. Section 96(2) of the Act specifies that each day an order of the Board is contravened constitutes a separate offence. Given that the respondent was not put on notice that the applicant would be seeking the Board's consent to prosecute it with respect to a third alleged breach of the Board's order, we are of the view that it would be inappropriate to deal with the alleged breach on January 23, 1987.
5At the hearing the applicant led evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case that on January 21, 1987 and again on January 22, 1987 the respondent denied access to an official of the applicant in breach of the Board's order under section 11 of the Act. We believe it appropriate for the Board to grant its consent to a prosecution of the respondent for these alleged contraventions of the order.
6The appropriate documents will issue.