Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1987] OLRB Rep. October 1294
0250-87-R; 3291-86-R; 3457-86-R
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27, Applicant v. Mollenhauer Limited, Respondent v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Intervener #1 v. Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association, Intervener #2;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27, Applicant v. Ellis-Don Limited, Respondent v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Intervener #1 v. The Form Work Council of Ontario, Intervener #2 v. Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association, Intervener #3;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27, Applicant v. Milne & Nicholls Ltd., Respondent v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Intervener #1 v. Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association, Intervener #2
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members D. A. MacDonald and P. Grasso.
APPEARANCES: Douglas J. Wray for the applicant; W. Thornton for the respondents; A. M. Minsky for intervener #1 and The Form Work Council of Ontario; Doug Gilbert for the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 1, 1987
1The Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association (the "MTABA") and the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, ("Local 183") both sought clarification of the Board's decision dated September 8, 1987 in this matter at the hearing held on September 10, 1987. Local 183 also sought reconsideration, pursuant to section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act, of part of the September 8, 1987 decision.
2We note that Mr. Reilly has not yet been actually served with the summons referred to in the September 8, 1987 decision as stated in paragraph 1 thereof. Rather, the parties had requested the Board to rule with respect to the summons on the basis that the applicant intended to have it served. In addition, having regard to the circumstances and the submissions of the parties, the Board directed that Mr. Green bring the documents he has been directed to produce to the hearing scheduled for September 21, 1987. Mr. Reilly was directed to bring the documents he has been directed to produce, as varied herein, to the hearing scheduled for November 9, 1987 if he is properly served with the summons prior thereto. The Board notes that counsel for the MTABA and counsel for Local 183 both undertook to make the documents to be produced available to counsel for the applicant prior to the scheduled appearances of Messrs. Green and Reilly respectively.
3With respect to the clarifications sought, the Board confirmed that the directions contained in paragraph 9 of the Board's decision of September 8, 1987 were as broad as they seemed. The broad net that has been cast by the Board's directions results from the manner in which the proceeding had developed and the issues before the Board have been defined.
4On consent of the applicant, subparagraph (d) on page 12 of the Board's September 8, 1987 decision was varied by deleting therefrom the words "Local 183 and the Residential Framing Contractors Association of Metropolitan Toronto and Vicinity Inc., and between the Ontario Form Work Association and the Form Work Council of Ontario" in lines 7 to 12 thereof.
5Other than as already indicated, the Board denied Local 183 request that it reconsider or vary its September 8, 1987 decision and affirmed the same.
6Counsel for Local 183 submitted that all of subparagraph (d) on page 12 of the Board's September 8, 1987 decision should be deleted because it was based on an apparent misunderstanding of Local 183's position in this proceeding. Counsel indicated that the Toronto Housing Labour Bureau, the Residential Framing and the Form Work Collective Agreements have only been provided to the Board, subject to proof, for the sake of completeness and form no part of Local 183's case. Accordingly, submitted counsel, the assumptions expressed in paragraph 7 and the conclusions set out in paragraph 8 of the September 8, 1987 are not correct. Even if the Board has, to some extent, misconstrued Local 183's position, we were not persuaded that our conclusions with respect to what documents ought to be produced by Local 183 were incorrect. In our view, the manner in which the issues have heretofore been defined and the proceeding has developed are such that it cannot be said that documents relating to the scope of Local 183's collective agreement with the Toronto Housing Labour Bureau are not arguably relevant. We appreciate Local 183's concerns with respect to the use of such documents for purposes other than these proceedings. In that regard, we adopt the views expressed at paragraph 19 of the Board's decision in Shaw Almex Industries Limited, [1984] OLRB Rep. Apr. 659. In our view, a balancing of the interests involved requires production. We also appreciate that it may require a great deal of work to comply with the Board's directions. However, that results from the nature of the case and is of no assistance in determining whether or not documents should be produced. At this stage, documents that are arguably relevant to the issues before the Board must be produced. Ultimately, the Board will determine the relevance of, and weight to be given to, all of the evidence adduced.
7The Board directed that the hearings continue as scheduled on September 21, November 9, 10, 12, 13, December 8 and 10, 1987.