[1997] OLRB REP. JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1
2953-96-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Burns International Security Services Limited, Responding Party v. International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 1962, Intervener
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members S.C. Laing and R. Montague.
APPEARANCES: Robert Healey, H. Alden and B. James for the applicant; lames B. Noonan, Michelle L. Dabs, Craig Mitchel and John Coletti for the responding party.
DECISION OF BRAM HERLICH, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER R. MONTAGUE; February 19, 1997
1Further to the decision of the Chair dated February 4, 1997 in this matter, a hearing was convened before this panel to deal with certain procedural issues in order to facilitate an expeditious and economical disposition of this application.
2After hearing the parties' initial submissions the Board heard their full submissions on the issue of which party ought to call its evidence first. After retiring to consider the parties' submissions a majority of the Board (Board Member Laing dissenting) delivered the following ruling orally:
The Board is persuaded that the rational and efficient conduct of these proceedings dictates that the employer call its evidence first, and the Board therefore so directs.
In coming to this conclusion we have not considered the fact that the parties agreed to a similar process in another proceeding. We have relied primarily on the fact that the knowledge as to why the employer has sought fit to raise an objection under section 14(4) is obviously within its knowledge and we think it is appropriate for the employer to inform the parties and the Board as to the specific nature of its concerns through the filing of particulars and the adducing of evidence.
We have also considered the fact that the union's task in this case (whether or not it bears the ultimate legal onus - an issue we don't decide now) appears to involve proving a negative and the prolongation of these proceedings by requiring the union to call its evidence first and to establish that no conflict of interest exists at hundreds of individual sites, is something the Board wishes to avoid, particularly when the employer could or should be able to identify with greater specificity the nature of its concerns regarding conflict of interest.
3After delivering this ruling the parties advised the Board that they felt confident they could agree to a reasonable schedule governing the exchange of particulars and documents. The Board looks forward to being advised of the results of those discussions.