Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527 v. Herve Pomerleau Ciments & Tuiles De Beauce Enr.
Parties
0478-99-G Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527, Applicant v. Herve Pomerleau Ciments & Tuiles De Beauce Enr., Responding Parties.
1723-99-R Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527, Applicant v. Ciments & Tuiles De Beauce Enr., Herve Pomerleau Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 8, 2000
Decision
1The Board, by decision in these matters dated January 12, 2000 directed the responding parties to produce for inspection a number of documents that the applicant had sought. The Board’s order directed that the responding parties have those documents available for inspection by counsel for the applicant on or before Monday, February 7, 2000.
2Counsel for the responding parties advised the Labour Relations Officer assigned to this matter, by letter dated January 24 that their client could not produce the documents ordered by the time stipulated in the Board’s order. That letter was followed up by a letter to the Board dated February 7, 2000 in which counsel seeks an extension of one month to produce the documents. Counsel stated that despite their client’s good faith and reasonable efforts to comply with the order, given the breadth of the order and the subject matter which dates back more than 10 years, the documents could not be produced by February 7, 2000. Counsel requests a one month extension.
3Counsel for the applicant opposes the extension, pointing out that the responding parties have failed or refused to post the requisite notices to employees, and have failed to file a response. He contends that an extension would cause further delay and requests that the Board “direct the responding parties to comply with the Board’s January 24, 2000 [sic] order.”
4This application is scheduled for hearing on May 31 and June 1, 2000. In our view, despite the responding parties’ failure to act promptly in either posting the requisite notices or file a reply, the request made for an extension, in the circumstances is not unwarranted. The order of production sought by the applicant and issued by the Board by its decision of January 12, 2000 (not January 24) does certainly require the production of a large number of documents. Counsel for the responding parties has clearly indicated that the production of those documents can be done by March 7, 2000. Allowing the responding parties additional time to produce documents will not, in our view, delay the hearing of this matter. The hearing is set for the end of May and beginning of June. If counsel for the applicant obtains production of the documents sought at the beginning of March, then counsel will have almost three months to review the documents in preparation for the hearing.
5The motion for an extension of time to produce the documents ordered produced by the Board’s decision of January 12, 2000 is granted. The responding parties are directed to produce for inspection by counsel for the applicant the documents ordered produced in the Board’s January 12, 2000 decision on or before March 7, 2000.
6Nothing in this decision should preclude the Labour Relations Officer assigned to this matter from continuing with her efforts to effect a settlement.
7This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board