[1990] OLRB Rep. May 503
0021-90-R; 0040-90-R Angelo Ganassin, Applicant v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 785, and the Ontario Provincial Council, Respondent v. D-K Construction Ltd., Intervener; Michael Parker, Applicant v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 1081, and Ontario Provincial District Council, Respondent v. D-K Construction Ltd., Intervener
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. N. Fraser and J. Redshaw.
APPEARANCES: M. G. Horan for the applicants; Harold F. Caley and Karl Ball for United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 785 and the Ontario Provincial Council; Craig Flood and E. Bairos for Labourers International Union of North America, Local 1081, and Ontario Provincial District Council; Pamela Yudcovitch and Murray Dietrich for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 11, 1990
1In each of these applications, the applicant seeks a declaration terminating bargaining rights. The applications came on for hearing together on May 10, 1990.
2At the commencement of the hearing, the Board raised some concerns with respect to the respondents which have been named in each application, the sufficiency of the notices given of the applications, and the descriptions of the bargaining units. In that regard, the Board observed that the applications relate in part to bargaining rights in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry and that all of the affiliated bargaining agents whose bargaining rights might be affected by the applications had neither been named as respondents nor given notice of the applications. The Board referred the parties to its decisions in Double S Construction, [1988] OLRB Aug. 800; Stuart Riel Masonry Contractor, [1984] OLRB Rep. July 1011; Clarence H. Graham Construction Limited, [1982] OLRB Aug. 1147 and Jan Peters Ltd., [1980] OLRB Rep. May 714.
3The Board then adjourned briefly to give the parties an opportunity to consider their positions. Upon returning, the Board was advised that the parties had agreed to adjourn the hearing in order to permit the applicants to name the appropriate parties and have them served with notice of the applications. The parties also agreed that this agreement was without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to argue that both applications are void ab initio.
4In the circumstances, the Board found it appropriate to adjourn the hearing to a date or dates to be fixed by the Registrar.
5In addition, the respondents in Board File No. 0040-90-R herein have filed a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act (Board File No. 0364-90-U) and a referral to the Board of a grievance in the construction industry (Board File No. 0365-90-G) against the intervener employer in both termination applications. The Registrar is directed to schedule all four of these matters (that is, Board File Nos. 0021-90-R, 0040-90-R, 0364-90-U, and 0365-90-G) to be heard together. How they or any of them are to proceed can be determined at the next day of hearing. (In that regard also, we note that the applicants in Board File No. 0365-90-G have waived the time limits in section 124(2) of the Act.)