International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 50 v. Otis Elevator Company Limited
[1992] OLRB Rep. April 497
2932-89-G International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 50, Applicant v. Otis Elevator Company Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Robert Herman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members D. A. MacDonald and I. Kurchak.
APPEARANCES: Maurice Green and Charles Murray for the applicant; M. Patrick Moran, Ed Wyzykowski and Andy Jensen for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 22, 1992
Decision
1This is an application pursuant to section 126 of the Act.
2In a decision dated May 8, 1991, the Board dealt with the issue of whether the respondent had breached the collective agreement. After determining liability, the Board remained seized on the issue of damages.
3The parties were unable to settle the damages issue, and this matter was relisted for hearing. In the interim, the Vice-Chair of the panel that issued the earlier decision, determining liability, had died. The instant Vice-Chair, together with the original Board members, sat on the panel convened to hear the damages issue.
4The respondent argued that the Board was without jurisdiction in the circumstances to substitute Vice-Chairs. It submitted that the liability issue would have to be reheard, and that the proceeding would have to recommence, from the beginning.
5The Board is satisfied, however, that it has the jurisdiction to continue. See, for example, EKT Industries Inc. [1987] OLRB Rep. May 696. Given that the issue of damages here appears to be an issue discrete from the question of liability, there is no requirement that only the original panel can consider the damages issue. However, should it become apparent that the decision of May 8, 1991 is not sufficiently clear in its meaning to enable the Board to determine damages without having to rehear evidence already led, then the parties may have to lead such evidence. The clarity of the prior decision can be addressed at the next hearing day.
6This matter is to be relisted for hearing, to hear the parties' submissions on whether the prior decision is sufficiently clear in meaning, and if not, whether evidence dealing with liability is necessary, and any other preliminary matters. The parties should be prepared to lead evidence, so that the hearing can proceed if the Board rules that such evidence is to be allowed.
7This panel is not seized.