[1990] OLRB Rep. February 217
0181-87-U Great Lakes Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, Complainant v. Saco Fisheries Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Robert D. Howe, Vice-Chair, and Board Members R. M. Sloan and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 8, 1990
- In a decision dated June 28, 1989 regarding this complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, another panel of the Board (comprised of Vice-Chair Patricia Hughes and Board Members R. M. Sloan and A. Hershkovitz) made the following determination (in paragraph 4):
…….we hereby direct the respondent
(a) to pay to the complainant the following monies on behalf of the grievors as specified:
Paulo Gara $ 43,147.67 Armindo Ferrierra 24,734.66 Julio Verissimio 29,430.97 Antonio Poupada 35,647.82 Tony Inacio 31,178.70 Citriano Pilo 59,603.02 Joan Bulhoes 24,059.72 TOTAL $247,802.56
(b) to pay the complainant interest on the above amounts at the rate of 10% per annum from and after the release of the Board's decision dated October 25, 1988.
- On December 7, 1989, Lennox A. MacLean wrote to the Board as follows concerning that determination:
We have been retained by Great Lakes Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, now the National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 444 to act on their behalf in the enforcement of the Board's decision herein dated June 28th, 1989.
Repeated demands have been made of the Respondent, Saco Fisheries Limited, but this company has refused and still refuses to comply with the Board's determination.
We are enclosing a copy of a letter which we sent to Saco Fisheries Limited dated July 7th, 1989, which along with the verbal demands for compliance both before and after this letter, have not resulted in any compliance with the Board's determination requiring payment of the sum of $247,802.56.
In the circumstances, we respectfully request the Board pursuant to Section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act to file in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, a copy of the determination in the prescribed form so that it may become enforceable as a judgment of the court.
Also enclosed is a copy of the Board's determination which we would appreciate you filing in the prescribed form in the Supreme Court as soon as possible. We also ask that you advise us as soon as the filing has been completed and provide us with a copy thereof.
Thanking you for your early attention to this matter.
- A copy of that letter was sent to R. Gary McLister, in his capacity as counsel for the respondent, along with the following letter from the Board's Registrar, on December 13, 1989:
The Board is in receipt of the attached letter dated December 7, 1989 and enclosure, from counsel for the complainant, which alleges that the respondent has failed to comply with the terms of the decision of the Board dated June 28, 1989, directing the respondent to implement the terms of settlement therein set out.
If the respondent has any representations to make with respect to the submission of the complainant, it must file them with the Board not later than December 29, 1989.
If the respondent fails to file any submissions on or before that date, or if the Board is satisfied on the submission made to it that there has been non-compliance with the said Board decision, the Board will file the said decision in the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act.
- Mr. McLister responded as follows in a letter dated December 19, 1989:
We find the letter sent to you dated December 7, 1989, most difficult to accept. No steps have been taken to implement the award because the issue of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction in these matters is still up in the air. The jurisdiction issue has been the subject of judicial review now under appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal which argument is scheduled to be heard on January 11, 1990. It had already once been scheduled but the hearing had to be cancelled due to an administrative foul-up at the Court of Appeal. It was rescheduled, so we believe, on a relatively expedited basis.
No order for enforcement should be given until the Court of Appeal decision is received. If it is favourable to my client, no monies would be owing by it to the complainants.
In the event any steps are taken, then our client will seek an order staying all enforcement proceedings at the Court of Appeal. The Paroian law firm, and in particular Raymond Colautti of that firm, advises that he is of the opinion that the stay would be granted as reasonable in the circumstances. That firm is handling the jurisdictional challenge.
We note, moreover, that we are not aware of repeated demands. The union and its representatives have been aware of our positions regarding the jurisdictional issue and the enforcement of the Board's award since very shortly after the award was granted. Their counsel accepts that it is a serious issue.
Consequently, we request that no steps be taken at this time. Kindly advise of your decision in this regard so that whatever needs to be done can be done.
- Mr. MacLean replied as follows in a letter dated January 16, 1990:
This will acknowledge our receipt of your letter of January 3rd, 1990, enclosing a letter from R. Gary McLister, counsel on behalf of Saco Fisheries Limited in which he takes exception to the Board registering this determination.
Apart from any other consideration, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard the appeal from the Divisional Court herein on January 11th and 12th, and has reserved judgment. It is my understanding of the opinion of at least one of the counsel who appeared before the court that it is likely that the Court of Appeal will render its judgment very soon in this matter.
In any event, it is quite clear that Saco Fisheries Limited has not obtained, nor indeed has it applied for any stay in the implementation of the Board's determination. Further, it is not insignificant that thus far the employers