[1988] OLRB Rep. September 975
3536-87-R; 0010-88-U; 0609-88-U; 0696-88-U United Food & Commercial Workers' International Union Local 175, AFL-CIO-CLC, Applicant v. Royce Dupont Poultry Packers, Respondent v. Group of Employees; United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175, AFL-CIO-CLC, Complainant v. Royce Dupont Poultry Packers, Respondent
BEFORE: R. Herman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members H. Peacock and R. W. Pirrie.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 16, 1988
The Board heard submissions of the parties with respect to whether and in what circumstances a tape recording might be played to the witness being cross-examined. The tape is alleged by counsel for the applicant union to be a recording of what occurred at a meeting of employees convened by the witness, Irving Ungerman. The statements Ungerman is alleged to have made at this meeting constitute in part the basis of the alleged unfair labour practice.
Having regard to those submissions, counsel for the union is hereby given leave to play the tape recording for Ungerman as part of counsel's cross-examination. The tape can be played forthwith, without the Board first being satisfied as to its accuracy, provided counsel first gives Ungerman an opportunity to deny or agree that he made the alleged statements particularized. Ungerman has not yet been provided such an opportunity after being apprised of the tape's existence.
Our direction prohibiting direct or indirect communication of the contents of the tape recording to the witness is hereby continued, until the tape recording is played in the hearing for Ungerman or the Board otherwise directs.
This matter is hereby set for continuation on November 14, 21 and December 5,1988, and January 3, 4, 5 and 19, 1989.
The first three above dates were agreed to by the parties at the last hearing date. The parties also felt that perhaps five more days would be necessary. The four days in January were subsequently agreed to by counsel for the applicant and counsel for Mr. Maracle. Counsel for the employer subsequently advised that her client would not agree to setting so many additional days, but would only agree to January 19th. There was no suggestion that either counsel or her client were unavailable on the other January dates. Accordingly, as all parties were available and as seven more hearing days might well be necessary, the Board set all the days recited in paragraph 4.