Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties: Graham Johnson, O.P.S.E.U., Complainants v. Township of Lake of Bays, Respondent
Before: R. O. MacDowell, Alternate Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and J. Redshaw.
Decision of the Board: August 13, 1992
1This is a complaint under section 91 [formerly 89] of the Act alleging that the respondent employer, through its officials, has contravened a variety of the unfair labour practice provisions of the Act. The details of that complaint need not be set out here. It suffices to say that, in the union's submission, the cumulative effect of the employer's conduct is to penalize a union supporter and interfere with the employees' right to trade union representation.
2This complaint was filed on June 30, 1992. As of the date hereof, the respondent employer has filed no reply; that is, there is no response to the union's complaint, no explanation for the allegedly unlawful conduct and no statement of facts upon which the employer intends to rely when this matter comes on for hearing. It might be noted that pursuant to section 91(5) of the Act the employer has the legal onus to establish that the conduct complained of did not contravene the Act.
3Having regard to the foregoing, the Board hereby directs that the respondent employer file its Reply forthwith. Such Reply must specify all facts upon which the employer intends to rely in responding to this complaint. In addition, the employer must identify, and provide to the complainant union all documents upon which the employer intends to rely or to which it will refer in this proceeding. Similarly, the complainants are directed to fully particularize all facts upon which they intend to rely, if they have not already done so, and to supply to the respondent and the Board all documents upon which they intend to rely.
4Finally, both parties are directed to indicate to the Board and each other the number of witnesses that they intend to call and their estimate of the total number of hearing days required to litigate this matter.
5Given the current state of the pleadings, the Board is not prepared to set this matter down for hearing immediately. However, in our opinion a pre-hearing conference might well be useful to explore (and potentially narrow) the issues in dispute. Accordingly, the Board directs and hereby notifies the parties that a pre-hearing conference in this matter will be held on September 15, 1992 at 9:30 a.m., at the Board's offices, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, on the 6th Floor. The parties should appear at that time with the counsel who will be representing them if this matter goes on for formal hearing. Following the completion of the pre-hearing conference, the Board will set this matter down for hearing, as necessary, setting aside the number of days which appear to be appropriate.