Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1996] OLRB REP. JANUARY 24
3519-95-R Ian Crockford et al, Applicant v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and its Local 1030, Responding Party v. 520601 Ontario Ltd., o/a Ontario Truss and Wall, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Jerry Kovacs, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. N. Fraser and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 9, 1996
Reasons for Decision
1This is an application for termination of bargaining rights filed on December 29, 1995.
2The title of proceedings is amended to add the following party as intervenor: "520601 Ontario Ltd. 0/a Ontario Truss and Wall".
3The responding party ("the union") asserts in its response that the application ought to be dismissed for various reasons including employer initiation of the application. The union has pleaded material facts supporting its assertion and the other parties have pleaded facts in denial of the allegation.
4The Board has recently considered the circumstances in which it might hold a hearing prior to a representation vote in termination cases. In Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 (Board File No. 3349-95-R, unreported decision dated December 21, 1995), the Board said the following:
- Section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 ("the Act") now governs the bringing of an application for a declaration terminating bargaining rights. Although it is evident from a review of the Act that the disposition of such an application will be determined, in the usual case, by way of a representation vote, it is clear from section 63(16) of the Act that, despite the provisions of section 63 which direct the Board to authorize a representation vote in certain circumstances, and to make a declaration in accordance with the result of that vote, the Board may bold a hearing and may dismiss the application without a vote if it is satisfied that the employer or a person acting on behalf of the employer initiated the application or engaged in threats, coercion or intimidation in connection with the application. In cases such as this one, where the union asserts material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of employer initiation or of employer threats, intimidation or coercion in connection with the application, the Board may schedule a hearing to deal with these allegations (as well as any other outstanding issues) prior to the holding of a representation vote.
5In the matter before us, the union has pleaded material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of employer initiation or of employer threats, intimidation or coercion in connection with the application.
6The Board directs that any representation vote in this proceeding be deferred until the determination of the allegations raised in the response by the union.
7This matter is scheduled for hearing on Monday January 22, 1996, at the "Board Room", 6th Floor, 400 University Avenue, Toronto at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to hear evidence and submissions of the parties on all outstanding issues. The parties will be expected to meet with a Labour Relations Officer prior to the hearing.```