[1991] OLRB Rep. May 663
1820-90-R Graphic Communications International Union Local N-1, Applicant v. Moore Corporation Limited, Respondent v. Group of Employees, Intervener
BEFORE: S. A. Tacon, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and B. L. Armstrong.
APPEARANCES: Stephen Krashinsky and Joe Hann for the applicant; R. Ross Dunsmore and Elizabeth Cooper for the respondent; Kevin Coon for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 22, 1991
This is an application for certification in which there are several matters in dispute. The first matter being heard is a non-pay allegation, namely, that Mark Hyland did not pay the $1.00 in connection with his application for membership in the union. This decision deals solely with an issue which arose during the cross-examination, of Mark Hyland by counsel for the union.
The parties filed written representations with the Board by the dates specified. As directed by the Board without objection, Mark Hyland received copies from the parties of those representations. Given the last date for representations and the date the hearing is scheduled for continuation, the Board gives its ruling with brief reasons. The Board does not regard it as necessary to set out the parties' submissions.
The questions on which the Board received representations may be stated as follows:
(a) whether Mark Hyland may consult with and be advised by counsel during the course of his testimony;
(b) whether the Board has the authority and/or should compel Mark Hyland to create twenty specimen signatures as requested by union counsel for use by an expert witness in comparing those specimen signatures with those on the application for membership, given Mark Hyland's testimony that the third signature which appears on that membership application is not his;
(c) whether the Board has the authority and/or should direct Mark Hyland to produce, at the next hearing, documents in his possession or control containing twenty original signatures which he acknowledges are his, again, as requested by and for the use stated in (b).
With respect to (a), union counsel conceded that section 11(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits a witness to consult with and be advised by counsel during the course of his testimony. The Board agrees that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act disposes of this question in the affirmative. Mark Hyland, as noted, has received copies of the parties' submissions and is directed to be served with a copy of the Board's decision so that he may, if he so chooses, take advantage of that right prior to the next day scheduled for hearing.
With respect to (b), assuming (without deciding) that the Board has the authority to give the direction sought, the Board declines to do so given its disposition of (c).
With respect to (c), the Board considers that the Board has the authority to grant the direction sought and that it would be appropriate to do so at this time to facilitate the hearing and avoid unnecessary delay. Accordingly, the Board directs Mark Hyland to produce, at the next hearing, documents in his possession or control which contain twenty original signatures which he acknowledges are his and which documents are of a nature which could be filed with the Board for the purpose sought by counsel for the union.
This matter is referred to the Registrar in accordance with the foregoing. As noted in paragraph 4, a copy of this decision is to be served on Mark Hyland.