United Steelworkers of America v. Alros Products Limited c.o.b. as Polytarp Products, 1992 CanLII 6728

United Steelworkers of America v. Alros Products Limited c.o.b. as Polytarp Products

[1992] OLRB Rep. April 502

3920-91-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Alros Products Limited c.o.b. as Polytarp Products, Respondent

BEFORE: M. G. Mitchnick, Chair, and Board Members G. O. Shamanski and H. Peacock.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 3, 1992

1. This is an application for certification by way of Pre-hearing Vote. The respondent's material was received by the Board late on the terminal date, Friday, March 20th. The applicant requested an opportunity to review the Employee List and make any necessary inquiries prior to the onset of the meeting between the parties and the Board Officer. The problem was that the meeting with the Board Officer had previously been scheduled by the Board for the ensuing Mon­day morning. The respondent objected to the applicant's request to see the List in advance on the basis that the applicant had made a similar certification application once before, and withdrew it. The respondent therefore indicated it had a concern about abuse of the Board's procedures.

2. The Board recently set out its views regarding disclosure of the Employee List in Cor Jesu (as yet unreported), [now reported at [1992) OLRB Rep. Mar. 298], Board File No. 2718-91-R, decision dated March 16, 1992. As the Board there indicated, holding the List back from the applicant until the parties actually come together for a Board meeting or hearing is no longer acceptable. The List ought to be circulated and discussed prior to either such formal convening tak­ing place, in the hope that the time and expense of either a hearing or a meeting can perhaps be avoided. That is particularly true in the case of a Pre-hearing Vote application, a procedure specifi­cally designed to treat time as being of the essence, and where virtually any of the matters that may be in dispute are deferred until after the vote in any event.

3. In the present case, there simply was not the opportunity, given the receipt of the mate­rial, to involve a Board Officer in any kind of a "waiver" process, and a panel of the Board (Mr. Shamanski reserving) made the decision to circulate the List immediately, for whatever prepara­tory opportunity the weekend might provide for the applicant. In doing so, the Board noted that communicating the List on the Friday versus the Monday had no bearing whatever on the respon­dent's concern over potential "abuse". As the Board has stated in a variety of cases, the applicant would have an absolute right to see the List at some point in the proceedings, and the question of "abuse" is, as it always has been, simply one for the Board to address by way of refusal to enter­tam if and when a subsequent application for certification comes to be filed (again, see Cor Jesu, supra, and the cases cited therein).

CONCURRING OPINION OF BOARD MEMBER G. O. SHAMANSKI: April 3, 1992

1. I have agreed with the majority award in the particular circumstances facing the Board in this case.

2. It is my understanding that had the respondent delivered its material to the Board ear­lier, the Board would have followed the "Officer" procedure set out in CorJesu.