Schneider Office Employees' Association v. J.M. Schneider Inc.
File No.: 2144-91-M Date: February 24, 1992 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Applicant: Schneider Office Employees' Association Respondent: J.M. Schneider Inc.
Before: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1By decision dated November 21, 1991, the Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report to the Board with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the persons whose "employee" status is in dispute herein. However, the Board also directed that the officer designated to conduct the inquiry not to begin it until the applicant provided additional information as specified (in paragraph 3 of the decision).
2Subsequently, the parties met with the Board Officer designated to deal with the matter. By letter dated February 3, 1992, the respondent takes the position that the applicant has failed to provide the requisite information and that the inquiry authorized by the Board should not proceed until it has done so. The applicant has responded by letter dated February 4, 1992 that it is not in a position to provide further particulars with respect to the nature of the positions held by the persons whose status is in dispute or of the mischief alleged, and that a historical description is irrelevant.
3Board Practice Note No. 4 applies to this situation. It is within the parameters of the Officer's authorization from the Board to determine whether or not the applicant has complied sufficiently with the Board's directions to permit the inquiry to proceed. Any objections to a ruling by the Officer in this respect, or to any other ruling by the Officer in the course of the inquiry (if it proceeds) is properly made and dealt with in accordance with Practice Note No. 4. We see no basis upon which to intervene at this time.
4We do venture the following observations, however. We are hard pressed to understand how the respondent employer can say it is unaware of the particulars of positions it has itself established. It is the employer which should have the best information in that respect. Further, the applicant seeks a declaration that the persons whose status is in dispute are employees. On the face of the applicant's materials, its position is that the respondent is trying to circumvent or undermine the applicant's bargaining rights by improperly classifying the persons in issue as managerial. That appears to be the "mischief' at which this application is directed. It is the respondent, by taking the position that these persons do exercise managerial functions, which implicitly asserts that it would create a mischief if these persons were considered to be "employees" within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.
5On the other hand, it is not for the applicant to say that the historical dimension to this matter is irrelevant in the face of a Board direction that it provide particulars of the relevant background to this application (which we observe it has in any event addressed itself to, whether sufficiently or not is for the Officer to decide, in its December 13, 1991 letter herein).
6Finally, the applicant has suggested that the respondent has taken the position that it will not produce witnesses for examination in this matter until the Board has determined whether its November 21, 1991 directions have been complied with. The respondent will comply with Practice Note No. 4 in that respect and will produce persons in its employ whose "employee" status is in dispute herein as required by the Officer.
7The matter is remitted to the Officer as previously authorized by the Board. The Officer is to proceed in accordance with that authorization and Practice Note No. 4.