International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105 v. Dunmark Electric (Ancaster) Limited, 1988 CanLII 3698

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105 v. Dunmark Electric (Ancaster) Limited

[1988] OLRB Rep. May 489

1825-87-R International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105, Applicant v. Dunmark Electric (Ancaster) Limited, Respondent v. Construction Workers Local 6 affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada, Intervener

BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. Gibson and H. Kobryn.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 27, 1988

1. By decision dated March 28, 1988 the Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report back to the Board on the list and composition of the bargaining unit on the application date, October 2, 1987.

2. On May 18, 1988, during the LRO inquiry, the parties signed a statement requesting that the inquiry be adjourned to permit the scheduling of a hearing before the Board to hear viva voce evidence with respect to a "serious credibility issue".

3. As the Board stated in Jasper Construction (unreported decision in Board File #2227-86-R dated December 17, 1986):

5. The Board will neither interrupt nor terminate the authorization of the Board Officer to inquire into and report to the Board on the list of employees and composition of the bargaining unit to permit the [credibility] issue to be brought before the Board for hearing. The potential for a credibility issue with witnesses exists in any matter where parties take opposite views, whether this be in an inquiry being conducted by a Board Officer or in a hearing before the Board. When there is an issue of credibility of witnesses testifying in a Board Officer's inquiry, the Board usually will be able to resolve the credibility problem by scrutinizing the verbatim transcript of the Officer's proceedings, often assisted by the later oral submissions of the parties on the contents of the transcript. In the rare instances where the Board would not be able to resolve a credibility issue, it is always open to the Board to have the witnesses brought before it for an examination of their demeanour during direct testimony before the Board.

4. In Kaneff Properties Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1653, the Board said:

4. The authority of the Board to delegate to its examiners and Labour Relations Officers the power to conduct examinations respecting the duties and responsibilities of individuals or classes of persons, and to conduct examinations respecting the appropriateness of the bargaining unit generally, is found in section 92 [now 103] of the Act which provides, in part:

[103(2)] Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Board has power,

(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath, and to produce such documents and things as the Board considers requisite to the full investigation and consideration of matters within its jurisdiction in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases;

(c) to accept such oral or written evidence as it in its discretion considers proper, whether admissible in a court of law or not;

(g) to authorize any person to do anything that the Board may do under clauses a to f and to report to the Board thereon;

5. By enacting those sections the Legislature has allowed this Board the facility to respond expeditiously to the needs of parties involved in the collective bargaining process. The concern for expedition in certification proceedings is well established (see Nick Masney Hotels Ltd. (1970), 70 CLLC ¶14,020 (Ont. C.A.); Trench Electric Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Apr. 170; York University [1976] OLRB Rep. Apr. 187 at 192). Against the need for expedition, the Board must weigh the need for the opportunity to hear all relevant evidence. The procedure of taking evidence before an officer designated by the Board, then providing a report to the Board and the parties in the form of a verbatim transcript of that evidence and allowing all parties the opportunity to make oral submissions on the evidence directly to the Board is the formula, consistent with section 92 [now 103] of the Act, which has been arrived at to accommodate both of those interests.

5. It is for these reasons that the Board will not interrupt the inquiry which it has authorized the Board Officer to undertake. The Board Officer is directed to continue his examination and the parties are directed to lead all their evidence in front of the Officer, including any evidence on the credibility issue that the parties wish to adduce.