[1994] OLRB Rep. June 717
1626-92-U Louis Lauzon, Applicant v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 91, Responding Party
BEFORE: Robert D. Howe, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Marthe Montreuil, Charles V. Hofley and Patricia P. Brethour for the applicant; Michael Van Dusen, D. Fernandez, A. Papineau, A. MacFarlane, R. Thompson and N. Dunlevie for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 17, 1994
This is a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act (the "Act").
The complaint, as initially filed with the Board on September 9, 1992 by Marthe MonÂtreuil (who served as the applicant's counsel during the first two days of hearing), alleged that the responding party (also referred to in this decision as "Local 91" and the "Union", for ease of expoÂsition) had contravened what is now section 69 [formerly section 68] of the Act. However, the amended complaint subsequently filed with the Board by Charles V. Hofley and Patricia P. BrethÂour (who replaced Ms. Montreuil as Mr. Lauzon's counsel for the balance of the proceedings) alleged that the applicant had been dealt with by the Union contrary to sections 70 and 82(2) of the Act.
Although Marine Pipeline Construction of Canada Limited ("Marine") was duly notiÂfied of the complaint and the hearing scheduled by the Board (in view of the possibility that it might be affected by the remedy awarded by the Board in the event that the complaint was grantÂed), no one appeared on its behalf.
In its reply and in the initial submissions made to the Board by Michael Van Dusen who served at its counsel throughout the course of these proceedings, the Union disputed the Board's constitutional jurisdiction to deal with this complaint. However, after counsel's attention was drawn to Re Henuset Rentals Ltd. and U.A. Local 488 (1980), 1980 CanLII 2289 (SK CA), 119 D.L.R. (3d) 639 (Sask. C.A.), and Johnston Terminals and CLRA, [1982] 2 CAN LRBR 446, which each applied the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Monicalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission et al. (1979), 1978 CanLII 18 (SCC), 93 D.L.R. (3d) 641, in concluding that labour relations matters regarding employees of pipeline construction contractors fall within provincial jurisdiction, the Union abandoned that posiÂtion and acknowledged that the Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide Mr. Lauzon's complaint.
During the twelve days devoted to the hearing of this matter, fourteen persons were called as witnesses. In addition to their testimony, the Board has before it thirty-five exhibits which were entered during the course of the proceedings. In making the findings and reaching the concluÂsions set forth is this decision, the Board has duly considered all of that oral and documentary evidence, the submissions of counsel, and the usual factors germane to assessing evidentiary credibilÂity and reliability, including the firmness and clarity of the witnesses' respective memories, their ability to resist the influence of self-interest when giving their version of events, the internal and external consistency of their evidence, and their demeanour while testifying. The Board has also assessed what is most probable in the circumstances of the case, and considered the inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the totality of the evidence.
Marine was one of the employers bound by the 1991-1993 Teamsters Mainline Pipeline Agreement for Canada (the "Agreement") between the Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Canada (the "Teamsters Union") and its Local Unions, such as Local 91, having pipeline jurisÂdiction. That agreement (and its predecessors) required that all of the work covered by tt be perÂformed by members of the Teamsters Union. It also required owner-operators performing any such work to be or become members of the Teamsters Union.
Prior to 1990, the referral of owner-operators to pipeline work in the Ottawa area was carried out by The Greater Ottawa Trucking Association (the "Association"). When such work became available within its geographical jurisdiction, Local 91 would request the Association to dispatch owner-operated equipment to the site, conditional upon each dispatched owner-operator becoming a member of Local 91. Upon completion of the job, each such owner-operator would be given a withdrawal card, and would have nothing more to do with Local 91 until another pipeline job came into the area.
In 1989 an owner-operator named Norm Dunlevie approached Andre Papineau (who has been a Business Agent for Local 91 since 1986, and who became its President in May of 1990) with a view to exploring the possibility of developing closer ties between the owner-operators and the Union. Following extensive discussions involving Mr. Dunlevie, Mr. Papineau, other Union officials, and members of the Association's Board of Directors, Local 91 began to recruit owner-operators as members and succeeded in signing up a substantial number of them during 1990 and 1991.
When Local 91 began to operate its own dispatch system for owner-operators, it sought to create a system that would give all of the owner-operators an opportunity to work, and that would eliminate the practice by which some of the owner-operators had obtained greater work opportunities by giving foremen various items such as hockey tickets and bottles of alcohol. The Union's dispatching of owner-operators to the pipeline job in 1990 ran quite smoothly. However, the Union encountered some problems regarding the operation of its owner-operator dispatch sysÂtem in respect of the pipeline job in 1991. In an attempt to fairly apportion work opportunities amongst the owner-operators, it decided at the end of that job to rotate to the bottom of the disÂpatch list all of the owner-operators whose trucks had grossed $15,000 or more from that job. However, this did not prove to be satisfactory as a number of the owner-operators only had gross earnings in excess of that amount by virtue of their obligation to collect G.S.T. Moreover, the owner-operators who had tri-axles or who used their tandems to carry rock reached that level of gross earnings more quickly than those with tandems carrying sand, by virtue of the premium rates negotiated by the Union for tri-axles and rock carriers. Thus, the Union decided on the basis of its experience in 1991 that if the list was to be rotated in 1992, the rotation should be based upon hours on the job, rather than gross earnings.
Angus MacFarlane became a Business Representative for Local 91 in March of 1992. He had been a Vice-President and Business Representative of Teamsters Local 880 for the precedÂing five years and had "driven truck" in various places for many years before that. He had also previously worked for the Ford Motor Company in St. Thomas, where he had been a U.A.W. repÂresentative in 1967. The applicant also worked there at that time, and he and Mr. MacFarlane became friends as a result of their work relationship.
Mr. MacFarlane's primary area of responsibility as a Local 91 Business Representative was construction. His responsibilities included not only the representation of drivers employed by construction companies, but also the representation of owner-operators who were members of the responding party.
In April of 1992 pipeline construction work in Local 91's area was awarded by Trans-Canada Pipeline ("Trans-Canada") to a joint venture (referred to in the evidence as "Marine/Banister" and "Banister/Marine") comprised of Marine Pipeline Construction of Canada Limited and Banister Pipelines. (Since nothing turns on its precise identity in this case, the Board will continue to refer to the employer as "Marine" in this decision, for ease of exposition.) That job was to commence in June and to continue until November, with an estimated total crew of 700 at its peak.
On May 7, 1992, the Union held a meeting which was attended by approximately a hunÂdred owner-operators. The main topic discussed at that meeting was the pipeline job and other possible work opportunities for owner-operators. It was explained at that meeting that if those other work opportunities materialized, there would probably be sufficient work to keep all of the owner-operators busy. However, the only job that was a certainty at that time was the pipeline, which would not provide enough work for all of the owner-operators. Thus, the possibility of a rotation system was discussed at that meeting. Philip O'Reilly, who was one of the owner-operaÂtors in attendance at that meeting, suggested that there be a rotation of trucks every two weeks, as had occurred when he was working in Newfoundland. However, that suggestion found favour with neither the Union officials conducting the meeting nor the owner-operators in attendance, as they were all of the view that it would be impractical and unworkable in the context of the pipeline. Although there is some conflicting evidence on the matter, and although not every witness who was in attendance at the meeting recalls it being discussed, the Board is satisfied on the totality of the evidence that during the course of that meeting the owner-operators were advised that in the event the other work did not materialize, the Union reserved the right to introduce a rotation in respect of the pipeline job so that all of the owner-operators would get some work.
Marine's 1992 pipeline construction work in the greater Ottawa area consisted of three loops: Pembroke, Stittsville, and Deep River. Pembroke was the first loop to become operational, followed by the Stittsville and then Deep River. Owner-operators were referred to a particular loop and were generally not moved from one loop to another, as each of the loops functioned sepaÂrately on a day to day basis.
Following the pre-job meeting that was held on May 14, 1992, the Union was requested to send ten trucks to start work at the Pembroke loop on June 8. Since it was not feasible for Mr. MacFarlane to personally cover the entire job, he decided to appoint Mr. Dunlevie and Mr. LauÂzon as Union contact people for the owner-operators on the Pembroke loop. He deemed it advisÂable to have two contact people on that loop because it was expected that there might be as many as eighty trucks working there at the peak of construction. As indicated later in this decision, Mr. MacFarlane also subsequently appointed a Union contact person for the owner-operators working on the Stittsville loop, and a Union contact person for the owner-operators working on the Deep River loop.
Although they were frequently referred in the evidence as "stewards" because that is a title commonly used in union circles to describe persons elected or appointed to assist persons rep
resented by a union, it is clear from the totality of the evidence that neither Mr. Lauzon nor any of the other owner-operator contact persons appointed by the Union was the "Job Steward" within the meaning of Article III of the Agreement (which provides for the "Job Steward" to be "one of the first hired and ... the last employee laid off in his classification provided he is competent to perÂform the work to be completed"). The person who was appointed by the Union as the Job Steward (within the meaning of that provision) on the 1992 pipeline job was Mike McCarthy, who was not an owner-operator. Unlike Mr. McCarthy, whose responsibilities included meeting with superviÂsors in order to resolve problems encountered by employees on the site, individuals such as Mr. Lauzon who were appointed by the Union as "stewards" for the owner-operators did not have any authority to deal with supervisors; their responsibilities were limited to relaying to Mr. MacFarlane information regarding owner-operator complaints and other problems encountered on the job, so that Mr. MacFarlane could resolve them. Although Marine was not legally obligated to do so, management apparently agreed to honour Mr. MacFarlane's request that in the event it was necesÂsary to lay off some of the owner-operators, they would attempt to keep the owner-operator "stewÂards" on the job so that the Union would have them there as contact people. (For ease of exposiÂtion, Mr. Lauzon and the other people appointed by the Union as owner-operator contact people will also be referred to in this decision as "stewards".)
With the approval of Mr. Papineau, Mr. MacFarlane selected Mr. Dunlevie as one of the aforementioned owner-operator stewards because he had previously performed that role, and because of his extensive involvement from "day one" with the owner-operators and the Union. Being unfamiliar with any of the other owner-operators, Mr. MacFarlane selected Mr. Lauzon as an owner-operator steward because he knew him from their having previously worked together. Mr. Dunlevie was to have been the first owner-operator steward dispatched to the Pembroke loop, but he was unable to be there at the start of the job because his truck engine blew up. Thus, Mr. Lauzon was dispatched to the Pembroke loop on June 8 as the owner-operator steward, along with nine other owner-operators. By the time Mr. Dunlevie's truck was repaired, the Stittsville loop had also begun to operate, so Mr. MacFarlane decided to send him there as an owner-operator stewÂard, rather than to Pembroke. Thus, Mr. Dunlevie was dispatched to the Stittsville loop on June 15. However, after he had been there for about four days, Mr. MacFarlane asked him to leave Stittsville and go to the Pembroke loop to help Mr. Lauzon with the many problems that were being encountered there. Mr. MacFarlane then appointed an individual named Bob Thompson as the owner-operator steward on the Stittsville loop.
The applicant initially experienced few difficulties as an owner-operator steward on the Pembroke loop. However, as the number of trucks on that loop increased, he encountered many problems and the position began to (in the words of Mr. MacFarlane) "get on his nerves". Mr. Lauzon's inability to handle the increasing pressure was no doubt due at least in part to his quick temper and lack of patience, combined with his inexperience as an owner-operator steward. Thus, as time went on, Mr. MacFarlane began to receive an increasingly large number of complaints about Mr. Lauzon from other owner-operators. Mr. MacFarlane "took [those complaints] with a grain of salt", because he recognized that it was not an easy job to look after that many trucks, and because he felt that the majority of the issues causing unrest among owner-operators at the PemÂbroke loop were petty. However, it may reasonably be inferred that this unrest, and Mr. Lauzon's inability to calmly and efficiently handle the problems presented by the increasingly large number of trucks on the site, fortified the Union's conclusion that Mr. Lauzon should be moved to the Stittsville loop in order to avoid his being discharged by Marine as a result of the events described below.
On July 7, 1992, an Inspector employed by Trans-Canada, whose vehicles have the right of way on all roads on the site, complained that he had been run off the road by Mr. Lauzon's truck. He raised the matter that morning with Willie Craven, who was a safety representative for Marine and an assistant to Roy Fayant, the foreman on the Pembroke loop. The Inspector told Mr. Craven that the truck had been proceeding at an excessive rate of speed and that if he had not gone off the road into the ditch there would have been a head-on collision. When Mr. Fayant became aware of the Inspector's complaint, he told Mr. Dunlevie that he wanted to get rid of Mr. Lauzon. Although Mr. Fayant could have discharged Mr. Lauzon from the pipeline job, he indiÂcated that he would refrain from doing so if Mr. Lauzon was moved from the Pembroke loop to the Stittsville loop. Mr. Dunlevie attempted to contact Mr. MacFarlane on July 7 to discuss the matter with him, but was unable to do so because Mr. MacFarlane was in Toronto on Union busiÂness. However, Mr. Dunlevie did manage to contact Mr. Papineau at home that evening to ask him if Mr. Lauzon could be moved to Stittsville to avoid being discharged. After Mr. Papineau gave his approval to that course of action, Mr. Dunlevie contacted Mr. Lauzon, advised him of the transfer, and told him to report to work at the Stittsville loop the next morning.
When Mr. Papineau spoke on the telephone with Mr. MacFarlane in Toronto the folÂlowing evening and advised him of the situation, Mr. MacFarlane agreed that protecting Mr. LauÂzon's job by transferring him from Pembroke to Stittsville had been the appropriate action for the Union to take under the circumstances. Indeed~ it is clear from the evidence that Messrs. DunÂlevie, MacFarlane, and Papineau were all of the view that Mr. Fayant had done Mr. Lauzon a favour by not discharging him, and were also of the opinion that in view of the many problems he had encountered at Pembroke, Mr. Lauzon would be (in the words of Mr. MacFarlane) "much better off' on the Stittsville loop "because it was a much smaller group [and] it was much quieter there." However, it is also clear from the evidence that at the time they reached those not unreaÂsonable conclusions, they were unaware that the work at Stittsville was winding down and that a number of trucks would soon be laid off from that loop.
After Mr. Lauzon was transferred from Pembroke to Stittsville, he ceased to be an owner-operator steward. As noted above, Mr. Thompson had been appointed by the Union as owner-operator steward for the Stittsville loop when Mr. Dunlevie left Stittsville to go to PemÂbroke. The Union did not need a second owner-operator steward at Stittsville, because there were only about twenty trucks on that loop at that time.
It would have been preferable for the Union to have discussed the proposed transfer, and the reasons for it, in greater depth with Mr. Lauzon on the evening of July 7 (as would likely have occurred if Mr. MacFarlane had not been away in Toronto on Union business). However, it is evident from Mr. Lauzon's own testimony that neither the transfer nor the loss of his position as steward bothered him. It was his evidence that when Mr. Thomson informed him upon his arrival at Stittsville on July 8 that he was not a steward there, Mr. Lauzon said "That's fine", and kept on working. Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the need for quick action in order to save Mr. Lauzon from being discharged by the Company, the desirability of removing Mr. Lauzon as a source of unrest at the Pembroke loop, and the highly undesirable position that Mr. Lauzon would have been in from an economic and tactical point of view if Mr. Fayant had proceeded with his plan to discharge him, the Board is satisfied that the Union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatoÂrily, or in bad faith in respect of that transfer.
As a result of a shortage of work, the applicant was laid off by Marine on July 25, 1992, along with the other five owner-operators who were the most recent arrivals on the Stittsville loop. As soon as the Union became aware of his lay-off, it advised the applicant that the Deep River loop would be starting up in the near future and assured him that he would be sent to work at Deep River. Accordingly, Mr. Lauzon went to Deep River approximately two weeks later and remained there until he completed a total of six hundred hours of 1992 pipeline work. He was then rotated to the bottom of the list in accordance with the Union's mid-summer decision to introduce a six hundred hour rotation system on the pipeline, in an effort to ensure that all of the owner-opÂerators obtained some work on the pipeline that year, since none of the aforementioned other work opportunities had materialized.
Although Mr. Lauzon and some of the other owner-operators working on the pipeline job were opposed to the introduction of a rotation system, the Board is satisfied on the totality of the evidence that the Union did not contravene section 70 of the Act by introducing the aforemenÂtioned rotation system which it concluded, not unreasonably, would be in the best interest of the owner-operators as a whole.
Having duly considered all of the evidence and the able submissions of counsel, the Board is also satisfied that none of the Union's other actions were violative of section 70, including its referral of Mr. Lauzon to Deep River following his lay-off from the Stittsville loop, and the manner in which it handled the grievances which Mr. Lauzon sought to file in respect of that layÂoff and various other matters, which the Union not unreasonably viewed as involving no violation of the Agreement.
Having concluded that the complaint should be dismissed insofar as it pertains to secÂtion 70 of the Act, the Board must now determine whether the Union has contravened section 82(2), as further alleged by the applicant.
Section 82(2) of the Act provides as follows:
No trade union, council of trade unions or person acting on behalf of a trade union or council of trade unions shall,
(a) discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condiÂtion of employment; or
(b) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person,
because of a belief that the person may testify in a proceeding under this Act or because the perÂson has made or is about to make a disclosure that may be required in a proceeding under this Act or because the person has made an application or filed a complaint under this Act or has participated in or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Act.
It is the applicant's contention that the Union contravened that provision of the Act by refusing to allow him the pay his Union dues and renew his membership, in an effort to intimidate or coerce him, or to impose a penalty upon him, as a result of his having filed this complaint.
On September 24, 1992, Local 91 sent the following letter to the applicant (on the Union's letterhead):
THIS IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY PAID THROUGH OCTOÂBER 1992.
WE ARE BILLING YOU FOR THE FOLLOWING MONTHS:
NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 - $25.00 x 12 months $300.00
THE AMOUNT OF $300.00 OWING FOR UNION DUES MUST BE RECEIVED IN OUR OFFJCE NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1992, 4:30 P.M.
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 1992 IF YOUR DUES ARE NOT PAID UP TO DATE TO INCLUDE OCTOBER 1993 - YOUR NAME WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE INDEPENDENT DISPATCH LIST.
AFTER WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR PAYMENT OF $300.00 FOR DUES, WE WILL MAIL YOU A WINDSHIELD STICKER TO BE PUT IN THE WINDOW OF THE TRUCK THAT YOU HAVE REGISTERED WITH US, SHOWING YOUR DUES PAID FOR NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS BILLING PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL CINDY POWER AT THE ABOVE NUMBER.
Similar materials were sent by the Union to all of the other owner-operators at that time. Each of the letters was accompanied by a copy of the Union's September 1992 Rules and Regulations for Independents, and an information sheet which was to be completed by the owner-operator and returned to the Union office to enable the Union to update its records regarding the owner-operator's address, telephone number(s), vehicle, etc.
In response to that letter, Mr. Lauzon mailed a cheque in the amount of $300 to Local
91 on October 26, 1992. Although there is no evidence before the Board that Mr. Lauzon mailed the aforementioned information sheet to the Union along with his cheque, there is also nothing before the Board which indicates that any of the pertinent information had changed from what was already on file with the Union, and the Board is satisfied that the Union would not, in the normal course of events, have declined to renew Mr. Lauzon's membership on the basis of that technicalÂity.
Mr. Lauzon's cheque was never cashed, and the Union has no record of ever having received it. Although it is possible that the cheque was received by the Union and subsequently misplaced, it appears more likely that it was lost in the mail and, therefore, never delivered to the Union's office. Mr. Lauzon was unaware that his Union dues remained unpaid until that fact was drawn to his attention by Mr. MacFarlane during a recess in the hearing on January 12 or 13, 1993 (which were the first two days of hearing of this matter). During that recess Mr. MacFarlane told Mr. Lauzon that the outcome of the hearing would not make any difference as he was no longer a member of the Union because he had not paid his dues. When the applicant subsequently attempted to obtain the cancelled cheque from his bank in order to establish that he had paid his Union dues, he discovered that there was no cancelled cheque as the cheque which he had sent to the Union had not been cashed.
There is a substantial conflict in the evidence concerning when the applicant next attempted to pay his Union dues. It was Mr. Lauzon's testimony that he went to the Union office in January shortly after the hearing and asked Cindy Power (who has been employed there for many years as a receptionist, typist, and dispatcher) if he could see Mr. Papineau to give him a cheque for his Union dues, but was told by Ms. Power that Mr. Papineau was not in and that he (Mr. Lauzon) was not allowed in the office. Ms. Power, on the other hand, testified that Mr. LauÂzon did not come to the Union office at any time in January when she was present, and firmly denied that the conversation described by Mr. Lauzon had taken place. As indicated below, it is unnecessary for the Board to resolve that conflict in the circumstances of this case.
In mid January of 1993 the applicant obtained work in Thunder Bay and, accordingly, left the Ottawa area. While he was in Thunder Bay, a cheque in the amount of $300 was sent to counsel for the Union by Marthe Montreuil, who was the applicant's counsel at that time, along with the following letter, pursuant to Mr. Lauzon's instructions:
Objet: Louis Lauzon c. Teamsters Local 91
Vous trouverez ci-joint un cheque de 300$ emis au nom des Teamsters pour Ia cotisation annÂuelle de mon client. Ce dernier m'indique avoir fail des recherches atm de retrouver le cheque initial, envoye par le courrier, mais ne l'a jamais retrouve.
Nous vous demandons de bien vouloir l'acheminer e votre client en main propre atm d'6viter qu'il soil encore perdu.
(Ms. Montreuil sent the cheque to Union counsel rather than to the Union as a matter of profesÂsional courtesy, since Union counsel had characterized as unprofessional her previous direct conÂtact with his client.)
- That cheque was returned to Ms. Montreuil by Union counsel, along with the following letter:
I have your letter of April 15, 1993 and the cheque contained therein. As I am sure you are aware, I have no authority to accept membership dues on behalf of the Teamsters nor do I have any retainer to act as a messenger. I am unfamiliar with the procedures to be followed by Mr. Lauzon with respect to tendering his membership dues and I would therefore suggest that he pursue this matter through the normal channels.
You will accordingly find enclosed Mr. Lauzon's cheque being returned to you.
It is evident that Union officials, and in particular Mr. Papineau, the President of Local 91, were very perturbed by the fact that Mr. Lauzon chose to file with the Board and pursue the complaint to which this decision pertains. Moreover, as suggested at the hearing of this matter, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable for the Board to infer that in returning that cheque to Ms. Montreuil, Union counsel was acting pursuant to his client's instructions. HavÂing regard to all of the evidence, the Board is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that in the circumstances of this case the responding party opted to have its counsel return that cheque rather than to accept the cheque, reinstate Mr. Lauzon as a member, and restore his name to the dispatch list, in order to penalize Mr. Lauzon for having filed this complaint and participated in these proÂceedings. Thus, the Board finds that the responding party thereby contravened section 82(2) of the Act.
In view of that finding, it is unnecessary for the Board to determine whether the Union's subsequent action of freezing the list was also violative of section 82(2). It is also unnecesÂsary for the Board to resolve the aforementioned conflicting testimony of Mr. Lauzon and Ms. Power, as there was no owner-operator work to which Mr. Lauzon could have been dispatched by Local 91 during the period from January to April of 1993, inclusive, even if his name had been restored to the list during that period. During the course of the hearing of this complaint, appliÂcant's counsel indicated that the legality of the Union's subsequent decision to cease operating a dispatch system for owner-operators was not in issue in these proceedings. Accordingly, it is also unnecessary for the Board to make any determination in respect of that matter.
To remedy the aforementioned contravention of section 82(2) of the Act, the Board hereby orders the responding party:
(i) to compensate the applicant, with interest, for all lost earnings which resulted from that contravention of the Act, and
(ii) upon the applicant tendering payment of his outstanding dues, to restore the appliÂcant's name to its owner-operator dispatch list, in the event that it recommences operÂating an owner-operator dispatch system.
- The quantification of the applicant's loss (and the interest payable on that loss) is remitÂted to the parties. However, the Board will remain seized of the matter for the purpose of quantifÂying its remedial order and resolving any other issues which may arise regarding the implementaÂtion of that order, in the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement on those matters.