[1987] OLRB Rep. October 1330
1181-87-R United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27, Applicant v. Strongland Construction Ltd., Respondent
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members D. A. MacDonald and J. Redshaw.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 16, 1987
- By letter dated October 2, 1987, counsel for the respondent submits that the Labour Relations Officer authorized by the Board to enquire into and report to the Board with respect to the list and composition of the bargaining unit has wrongly ruled that:
"In conducting the enquiry into the question of whether or not Company employees were carpenters and to be included in the bargaining unit applied for he would limit the company to introducing evidence relating to the work of the employees on the application date."
Counsel requests that the Board either direct the Officer to permit the respondent to adduce evidence of the activities of the persons concerned prior to the date of application, or, in the alternative, that the Board convene a hearing to deal with that evidentiary matter.
The procedure relating to enquiries conducted by Labour Relations Officers is set out in Board Practice Note #4. For matters not specifically dealt with by Practice Note #4, the appropriate procedure to follow is by analogy to it. Practice Note #4 contemplates that all parties be given an opportunity to examine those witnesses whom they choose to call and to cross-examine those witnesses called by another party or who are initially examined by the Officer. We observe also that the Officer's ruling, as set out by counsel for the respondent, does not preclude the respondent from adducing evidence with respect to those persons whose inclusion on the list of employees herein is in dispute for days other than the date of application so long as that evidence is arguably relevant to that issue.
In our view, Board Practice Note #4 provides an adequate mechanism for dealing with the concerns raised by the respondent in this case, and it would not be appropriate for the Board to depart from its usual practice in such matters in either of the ways suggested by it. To accede to the respondent's request would be to invite objections and requests for rulings which would ultimately serve to do little more than cause further delays in the certification process. The appropriate time for the Board to deal with such matters is after it has received the Labour Relations Officer's report and the submissions of the parties with respect thereto. Accordingly, the respondent's request is denied and the Board Officer is directed to continue with his enquiry.