United Steelworkers of America v. Premdor Inc.
2320-00-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Premdor Inc., Responding Party v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 2243 and District Lodge 78, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 11, 2000
1This is an application for certification. A representation vote was held on November 14, 2000. The parties continue to have a dispute as to whether students employed during the school vacation period should be included in the bargaining unit. That issue will be determined by the Board at the hearing scheduled for December 18, 2000.
2The parties also have a dispute with respect to certain allegations raised by the responding party. The responding party asks that the Board direct that a new representation vote be held pursuant to section 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The applicant requests that those allegations be dismissed as the responding party has failed to provide particulars of them and/or because they do not make out a prima facie case for the exercise of the Board’s discretion under section 11(2).
3The Board considers it appropriate to leave it to the panel who is to hear the matter on December 18, 2000 to determine whether the allegations under section 11(2) should be dismissed. The responding party indicates that the person making the threat is “unidentified”. It is not clear if that means that the responding party does not know who it is, is not sure, or is not prepared to disclose the information. If the responding party has not disclosed particulars with respect to whom it alleges made the threat and with respect to whom it was made prior to the hearing, the applicant will be severely prejudiced and will not know the case it has to meet. The Board may therefore decline to permit any evidence with respect to the matter to be called. The Board notes that it does not assume that an anonymous threat made against an individual who does not support a trade union must have been made by a representative of the trade union just as it does not assume that an anonymous threat made against an individual who supports the trade union must have been made by a representative of an employer.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board