International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - U.A.W. v. Morrison's Meat Packers Ltd.
[1993] OLRB Rep. March 226
2159-92-U International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - U.A.W., Applicant v. Morrison's Meat Packers Ltd., Responding Party
BEFORE: Brain Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and E. G. Theobald.
APPEARANCES: Elizabeth Mitchell, Don Caryn, Leslie Cook, Jim Sawyer, Fred Jepson, Bill Butler and Terry Hartman for the applicant; Ian S. Campbell, Paul Boniferro and Ron Dancey for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 1, 1993
1During its cross-examination of Ron Dancey, the president and CEO of the responding party, the applicant sought to ask certain questions. In particular, it sought to put to him that he had made certain statements to Suzanne Simmicks, one of the grievors in this matter. No particulars of any of these alleged statements, which the union indicated it was prepared to prove through the grievor Simmicks, were included in any of the material filed by the applicant in support of its application. Consequently, the responding party objected to the applicant pursuing this line of questioning. The applicant asserted that this line of questioning was relevant to the issue of the witness' credibility and that, further, it was evidence which could allow the Board to draw an inference of anti-union animus. The applicant also suggested that while the statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Dancey did not, of themselves, amount to "improper conduct" (as that term is used in section 72 of the Board's former Rules of Procedure), they could or would contribute to a finding of anti-union animus.
2After recessing to consider the parties' submissions the Board delivered the following oral ruling:
Rule 12(d) of the Board's Rules of Procedure reads as follows:
- Any application filed with the Board must include the following details:
d) a detailed statement of all the material facts on which the applicant relies, including the circumstances, what happened, when and where it happened, and the names of any persons said to have acted improperly.
Under Rule 124 these rules come into force on January 1, 1993 and Rule 125 provides:
- These Rules apply to all cases before the Board on the date these Rules come into force, unless the Board orders otherwise.
Rule 12(d) does not speak to "allegations of improper conduct" but rather to a "detailed statement of all the material facts on which the applicant relies".
In this case the applicant seeks to pose questions regarding facts it asserts will contribute to the Board ultimately drawing inferences of anti-union animus. The application does not particularize any of the facts on which the union now seeks to cross-examine. We are of the view that under the new rules the union was under an obligation to particularize these material facts and could, at a minimum, have provided additional particulars between January 1, 1993 [the date the new rules came into force] and the commencement of Mr. Dancey's evidence [on February 22, 1993]. We will not permit the applicant to pursue this line of questioning.