2403-98-R; 2405-98-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721, Applicant v. Big “B” Steel Erectors Inc., 1246074 Ontario Limited, c.o.b. as Sunset Construction, Spud Erectors Inc, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and A. Haward.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 24, 2000
1Counsel for the applicant has written to the Board requesting that the Board schedule a hearing and undertake to serve notice of that hearing on two of the responding parties. The purpose of the hearing would be to require the responding parties to show cause why the Board ought not to state a case for contempt to Divisional Court against them.
2The Board has some sympathy with the frustrations of the applicant. Both Big “B” Erectors Inc. and 1246074 Ontario Limited (which as a result of an earlier decision of the Board are to be considered one employer for all purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995) have failed to comply with the production orders made by the Board previously. Their failure to do so seriously hampers the ability of the Board and the parties in their conduct of this case.
3On the other hand, the Board cannot assume carriage of the applicant’s case for it. If the individual whom a process server apparently attempted to serve really is in St. Kitts, it would be impossible to commence any proceeding before the Board or Divisional Court as service of notice of such proceeding is impossible. Although the responding parties are in fact two corporations, it appears that it is only by requiring the directors of the two corporations to produce the necessary documents that any results are likely to be achieved. The directors are not as individuals parties in any way to this application.
4If in fact a process server was given incorrect information (a not unheard of occurrence), then the applicant would be well advised to employ the services of a licensed investigator or to effect service through a business representative of the union who would recognise the individuals sought to be served. The Board leaves it up to the applicant as to how to proceed.
5The Board also received a communication from counsel via e-mail to the Vice-Chair’s e-mail address. The Board does not accept service of any document by e-mail, although on an experimental basis in rare instances the Board has initiated contact among parties to a proceeding where all parties are represented by counsel. No communication to the Board by e-mail will be acknowledged or acted upon.
6This matter is scheduled for November 22, 2000. On that date, if service of a summons has not been effected on any of the individuals in possession of the documents of the
two corporations, the Board will require the parties to state what it is they wish to do with this application. The Board will contemplate adjourning the dates set for hearing in 2001 if there is no reasonable prospect of this case proceeding at that time.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board