[1990] OLRB Rep. January 64
1224-89-U; 1225-89-U; 2034-89-U Prosper Brizzard, Richard Brizzard, Robert Casson, Richard Koski, David Jaggard, Manfred Krause, Robert Krause, David Ross, Aulius Tiitto, Darrell Westover, Raynard Jacobson, Bruce Nordstrom and Larry Jaggard, Complainants v. Wilf McIntyre, Fred Miron, Roland Frayne, Niels Husman, Larry Duhaime and International Woodworkers of America - Canada Local 2693, Respondents; Gravel and Lake Services Limited, Applicant v. Roland Frayne, Neils Husman and Larry Duhaime, Respondents; Gravel and Lake Services Limited, Applicant v. International Woodworkers of America - Canada Local 2693, Respondent; Gravel and Lake Services Limited, Applicant v. International WoodWorkers of America - Canada Local 2693, et al., Respondents
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members R. M. Sloan and D. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 12, 1990
By letter dated January 9,1990, the International Woodworkers of America - Canada Local 2693 ("Local 2693") complains about the conduct of the Labour Relations Officer designated to conduct the inquiry authorized by the Board in this proceeding and request that the Board makes certain directions with respect thereto.
We observe that the author of the letter, Wilfred McIntyre, was not present at the hearing on December 5, 1989 at which the inquiry was proposed and discussed with the parties. It is not clear whether anyone who was present at that hearing on behalf of any of the respondents was also present during the proceedings before the Officer. We also observe that the nature and circumstances surrounding this proceeding in general and the Officer's inquiry in particular are somewhat unusual. The procedure adopted by an Officer must always be viewed in context.
In our view, there in insufficient information before the Board with respect to Local 2693's specific objections to enable the Board to rule on or address them at this time. Further, it would, in any event, be inappropriate to do so at this time. Board Practice Note No. 4, which the Board's decision dated December 11, 1989 specifies is generally applicable to the inquiry being conducted, establishes the general procedure for such inquiries, including the manner in which objections should be made. In our view, matters not specifically dealt with in Practice Note No. 4 should be dealt with by analogy to it. Further, an Officer has a discretion with respect to how s/he proceeds with an inquiry within the parameters established by Practice Note No. 4 and any directions from the Board. For the Board to intervene in the midst of an inquiry being conducted by an Officer would, particularly in this case, be inconsistent with Practice Note. No. 4 and tend to delay the inquiry. The appropriate time for the Board to rule on such matters is after it has received the Officer's report and the parties submissions with respect thereto. (See, Hollingworth Drain Services, [1987] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1250; Strongland Construction Ltd., [1987] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1330; Ottawa Structural Concrete Services Ltd., Board File No. 0666-87-R, September 4, 1987, unreported).
Accordingly, Local 2693's requests are denied but without prejudice to its right to address its objections to the Board at the proper time.
Given the somewhat unique circumstances in this proceeding, however, the Board wishes to note that, as was communicated to those present at the hearing on December 5,1989, it intended that the 13 persons who names appear at the bottom of the first page of the Officer's report with respect to the meeting held on November 30, 1989 (and which is Exhibit 22 in the proceedings before the Board) would be examined in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Practice Note No. 4 and that any other persons which any party asserts should be on the list of employees for the purpose of this proceeding would have to be named by the party making the assertion and that that party would bear the onus of adducing evidence with respect thereto (i.e., in accordance with or by analogy to paragraph 9 of Practice Note. No. 4). It was not intended that any party of the Officer's inquiry would deal with a review of the Officer's earlier report (that is, Exhibit 22) or the procedures he adopted with respect to it.
The Officer is directed to continue with his inquiry.