Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Steinberg Inc.
[1992] OLRB Rep. February 223
1346-90-R; 1347-90-R; 1617-90-U; 1830-90-U Teamsters Local Union No. 419 affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-men and Helpers of America, Applicant v. Steinberg Inc. (Miracle Food Mart Division) and The Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada Limited, Respondents v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL CIO CLC, and its Local 414, Intervener; R. Carniel et al, Complainants, v. Steinberg Inc. (Miracle Food Mart Division) and The Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada Limited, Respondents; Teamsters Local Union No. 419 affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Complainant v. Steinberg Inc. (Miracle Food Mart Division) and The Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada Limited, Respondents
BEFORE: Susan Tacon, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. O. Shamanski and R. R. Montague.
APPEARANCES: J. James Nyman and Robert McGibbon for the applicant in Board Files 1346-90-R and 1347-90-R; Paul Jarvis for Steinberg Inc., D. J. Shields and Tom Zakrzewski for The Great Atlantic and Pacific Company of Canada Limited; Susan Ballantyne and Robert McKay for the intervener in Board Files 1346-90-R and 1347-90-R; David Moore and Michael Battista for the complainants in Board File 1617-90-U.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 5, 1992
1At the hearing on February 4, 1992, the Board reserved its ruling with respect to the motion of counsel for the individual employees (joined in by counsel for the Teamsters) seeking a direction from the Board that the respondent Steinberg produce a witness, in accordance with the obligation under section 64(13) [formerly section 63(13)] of the Labour Relations Act, to testify with respect to the allegation under section 64 of the Act. The Board indicated to the parties that it would endeavour, if possible, to issue its ruling on the motion in bottom line form by Thursday, February 6, 1992 so as to avoid cancellation of the hearing dates scheduled for February 10 and 11, 1992.
2Having considered the submissions of the parties in the context of the jurisprudence, the Board is not persuaded by the argument of counsel for the respondent Steinberg (joined in by counsel for A&P) that the statutory duty under section 64(13) has been satisfied through the production, by only one of the respondents, namely A&P, of a witness or witnesses, to testify with respect to the section 64 allegation that a sale of business has occurred. The Board hereby directs the respondent Steinberg to adduce, through viva voce testimony at the hearing, "all facts within their knowledge that are material to the allegation".