0039-99-R Alcan Aluminium Limited, Applicant v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 221, Responding Party v. United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754; Ontario Pipe Trades Council of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54, Intervenors.

0040-99-R Alcan Aluminium Limited, Applicant v. Millwright Local 1410, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Responding Party v. United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54; Millwright Regional Council of Ontario, Intervenors.

BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.

APPEARANCES: Richard J. Nixon, Jim Richardson and Sven Spengemann for the applicant; A. M. Minsky, Q.C. and Brian Christie for United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 221 and the Ontario Pipe Trades Council; Harold. F. Caley and Claude Cournoyer for Millwright Local 1410 and Millwright Regional Council of Ontario; Marie Kelly and Mohamed Baksh for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754; Tim Hyatt for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54

DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 22, 2000

1These are two applications under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1 (the "Act") for declarations terminating the bargaining rights of the trade unions (as defined by section 126 of the Act), “construction trade unions”, which hold bargaining rights for persons the applicant employs or may employ in the construction industry in the province of Ontario that came before me for hearing on February 17, 2000. The Chair of the Board authorized me to sit alone to hear and determine these matters pursuant to section 110(14)(a) of the Act.

2There were a number of preliminary issues raised by both the parties and the Board at the first day of hearing of these applications, some of which were determined or agreed upon with the balance to be determined at a later date. There was some concern over whether these two applications would be heard together or separately. Counsel for the applicant submitted that they should be heard together as the relevant facts applied to both applications. There was not any disagreement over that suggestion. Therefore, these two applications would continue to be listed together for hearing.

3Counsel for the applicant raised, as a preliminary issue, whether the response filed late by counsel for Millwright Local 1410, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“Local 1410”) should be accepted by the Board. Counsel for the applicant took the position that as the response from Local 1410 was untimely, the Board should proceed without permitting Local 1410 to participate in the hearing, accepting all of the facts stated in the application as being true and determining the matter based on only the factual submissions and legal representations made by the applicant in respect of its application in Board File No. 0040-99-R.

4In the course of the applicant’s representations with respect to whether the Board would accept the late response filed by Local 1410 and permit its counsel to participate in the hearing, the Board raised with the applicant whether the necessary parties were named as responding parties to the application in Board File No. 0040-99-R. As a result of the Board’s concern, counsel for the applicant also made submissions to the Board on that issue.

5Counsel for the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 221 (“Local 221”), who had filed a timely response on behalf of Local 221 and on behalf of Ontario Pipe Trades Council of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (the “OPTC”) did not take issue with how the applicant had named the responding party in Board File No. 0039-99-R as the OPTC was an intervenor in this application. As a constituent member of the employee bargaining agency party to the ICI provincial agreement by which the applicant was bound, the OPTC had received notice of the application from the applicant and was prepared to participate in the proceeding even though it had not been named as a responding party.

6During the course of submissions concerning the applicant’s request to preclude counsel for Local 1410 participating in the hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that Local 1410 had had ample time to prepare its response. He pointed out that the certificate of delivery contained in both applications indicated that the materials had been delivered to the responding parties and to the other affected parties (the employee bargaining agencies, the affiliated bargaining agents of the employee bargaining agencies and to the trade unions which had collective agreements with the applicant) on or before 5 p.m. on April 8, 1999. At that point, I noted that the application had been filed with the Board on April 7, 1999. I advised counsel for the applicant that it appeared that the applications may have been filed with the Board prior to them having been delivered to the responding parties. Rule 123f of the Board’s Rules that were in effect prior to August 1, 1999 (which applied to this application at the time it was filed) provided in part:

“An application under section 127.2 of the Act must be made on Form GG-7. Before filing the application, the applicant must deliver to the responding party and to any affected party identified in the application:

(a) a completed copy of the application;…”

Thus, it was by no means clear to the Board that the applicant had, in fact, complied with Rule 123f in filing its application. Counsel for the applicant quite properly pointed out that there was no evidence from any of the affected parties that they had, in fact, received the application after it had been filed with the Board. Counsel for Local 221 and the OPTC advised the Board that he was not going to raise a technical objection to the application in Board File No. 0039-99-R based on the date the application material had been delivered to his clients.

7After receiving the submissions from counsel for the applicant with respect to the late filing of the response by Local 1410, I did not find it necessary to hear from counsel for Local 1410 on that issue and ruled that it was appropriate to exercise my discretion under the Board’s Rules of Procedure to relieve against the strict application of the Rules to permit Local 1410 to participate in this proceeding. I indicated that I would provide brief written reasons for that ruling.

8Shortly after Local 1410 and the other affected parties were served with the application in Board File No. 0040-99-R, the solicitors for Local 1410 contacted counsel for the applicant to seek an extension of time to file a reply. They confirmed that extension in a letter to the Board’s Registrar, which stated: “We act for the Responding Party and for the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario, the Employee Bargaining Agency. Counsel for the applicant has agreed to permit us to file our reply April 28, 1999.” In fact, the solicitors for Local 1410 and the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario (the “Millwright Council”) did not deliver and file their response to the application until May 7, 1999. Counsel for the applicant, by letter dated June 10, 1999 objected to the Board processing the response filed by the solicitors for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council. Counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council advised the Board and counsel for the applicant on June 11, 1999 that it indeed had filed its response after the time that had been agreed to between counsel, but explained that the matter had been the responsibility of a member of the firm who had recently left the firm “…and that as a result of the complications surrounding this departure, the response was not filed…” by April 28, 1999. Subsequent to that response by counsel for the Millwright Council and Local 1410 further submissions were made to the Board on the acceptance and processing of the late response and the matter was fully argued before me.

9Counsel for the applicant submitted that counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council had sufficient time to file their response in any event, but, as a courtesy to another member of the bar, he agreed to extend the time for filing to April 28, 1999. It may be noted at this point that neither party requested the Board extend the time for filing a response. Counsel for the applicant argued that counsel for the Millwright Council and Local 1410 did not ask for a further extension, and should have asked for a further extension if he was not able to prepare a timely response. Obviously, counsel thought a response could have been prepared by April 28, 1999 as that was the date that had been selected. The failure to comply with the Board’s rules is a serious matter and the conduct of counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council, by blithely ignoring the obligation to file a timely response, should not be countenanced by the Board. To allow the response to be filed late would, counsel submitted, simply encourage parties to ignore the obligations imposed by the Rules. The absence of prejudice is irrelevant when there has been no proper basis established for why there was a failure to comply with the Board’s Rules.

10In deciding to permit the filing and processing of the late response, the Board is exercising its power under Rule 44 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure in effect since August 1, 1999 by reason of Rule 166 of the Board’s Rules, which provides that the “new” Rules apply to all cases before the Board on August 1, 1999, unless the Board orders otherwise. There is not, in any event, any material difference between Rule 44 of the “new” Rules and Rule 22 of the previous Rules. Both provide that the Board may relieve against the strict application of the Rules where it considers it advisable.

11In this case, counsel for the applicant, quite properly and understandably, consented to the request for an extension of time to file a response. In effect, counsel for the applicant, by not requiring counsel for Local 1410 to obtain an extension of time for filing a response from the Board, was agreeing that he would not object to the response being filed after it was due, so long as it was filed by April 28, 1999. Having done so in that fashion, in my view, the strict time limit for filing a response and the consequences for failing to file a timely response under the Board’s Rules were no longer automatically applicable. When counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council filed their response on May 7, 1999, he filed it beyond the time stipulated in the Board’s Rules and beyond the time to which the parties had agreed. Counsel for the applicant did not, as a condition of agreeing to the extension, stipulate that if the response was late, he would seek to have the Board refuse to process it. I was satisfied, at the very least, that if counsel for the applicant had wanted the response filed by April 28, 1999 and not a moment later, he could have indicated the remedy he would seek for failing to file the response by the agreed upon date as a condition for granting the indulgence.

12More importantly, however, counsel for the applicant did not raise an issue about the late response until more than a month after it was filed. If counsel for the applicant wished to have the Board apply the sanctions available under the Rules for late filing, he could have sought to have the Board do so sooner (perhaps within days of the late filing) or at the very least he could have immediately advised counsel for the Millwright Council and Local 1410 that once he had not received their response by the agreed upon date, he intended to request the Board apply the sanctions under the Rules unless the response was filed by a certain date.

13Counsel for the applicant did not assert that the applicant was prejudiced in any way by the late filing of the response. Counsel for the applicant in his submissions also suggested that counsel for the Millwright Council and Local 1410 should have, but did not call to ask for a further extension. I was prepared to assume that had counsel made that call, explaining the departure of the lawyer responsible for the file and the need for a further, short extension, counsel for the applicant would have, as a matter of professional courtesy to the solicitors for the Millwright Council and Local 1410 and given the nature of the generally good relationships enjoyed by members of the labour bar who practise regularly before the Board, sought and received instructions from the applicant to agree to a further short extension. While the solicitors for Local 1410 and the Millwrights should have sought another extension from counsel for the applicant or, at the very least, advised counsel for the applicant that their response was going to be late and provided the reasons for being late, their failure to do so is less, in my view, a blithe ignoring or casual flouting of the Board’s Rules or of the courtesy extended by counsel for the applicant and more a matter of the solicitors trying to deal with fallout from one of their senior lawyers who had carriage of the file leaving the firm before the response was filed. Finally, in my view, the circumstances in the office of the solicitors for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council were such that the departure of a busy senior member of the firm can provide ample justification for the short delay in filing the response, such that I considered it advisable in all of these circumstances to extend the time for the filing of the response.

14Counsel for the applicant had also completed his submissions with respect to the issue the Board had raised in relation to the proper responding party to the application in Board File No. 0040-99-R. Counsel for the Millwright Council and Local 1410, while not agreeing with the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, advised the Board that just as counsel for Local 221 and the OPTC was not going to object to the application proceeding based on who was named as a responding party, neither would he. Counsel for Local 1410 and Millwright Council also advised the Board that he was not going to raise a technical objection to the application based on the date the application material had been delivered to his clients.

15The Board was satisfied by the submissions made by counsel for the applicant that his decision to name the responding parties the way he had in each application was reasonable, having regard to the decision certifying Local 221 and Local 1420 and to the form prescribed by the Board for making the application. As no objection is being taken by the affected parties, I am prepared to assume without deciding that all of the affected construction trade unions are represented by counsel in these applications through either the OPTC or the Millwright Council. It was clear to the Board that all of the parties affected by these applications had notice that their bargaining rights were jeopardized by these applications and could have participated in the proceedings if they had chosen to do so. More importantly, the affected employee bargaining agencies, although not specifically named as responding parties, are parties to the applications, having intervened and participated as full parties from the outset of the proceedings. Finally, in the absence of any objections taken by any of the affected parties to either the names of the responding parties or the filing and delivery of the applications, the Board is satisfied that the applications were properly filed and that the Board has the jurisdiction to deal with these applications on their merits.

16The parties disagreed over who had the evidentiary and legal burdens in these applications. The parties agreed that submissions with respect to those issues would best be dealt with at a separate hearing before this panel of the Board at an early date.

17Counsel for the applicant requested particulars or production from Local 221 and the OPTC and from Local 1410 and the Millwright Council of the names of any person they claim they represent who was an employee of the applicant on the application date. Counsel said he required that information so that he could prepare his case to deal with that issue. There was no serious disagreement over that request.

18Counsel for Local 221 and the OPTC requested that the applicant provide the names of the persons who were doing work, if any work was being done, on April 7, 1999 that came within the scope of the ICI provincial collective agreement by which the applicant and the OPTC were bound. The applicant objected to providing such information on the grounds that it was irrelevant. If the applicant had any of its employees performing that work on that day it is conceded that the names of those employees might be relevant, but the applicant points out that the Board decision certifying both Local 221 and Local 1410 excluded from the bargaining units those persons performing that work who were covered by existing collective agreements the applicant had with the industrial trade unions that represented employees at its facilities. The applicant submitted that if its employees performed work that might come under either the Millwright Council collective agreement or the OPTC collective agreement, and the employees who did that work were in the industrial bargaining units excluded from the certificates issued by the Board, the identity of those employees was irrelevant. The applicant advised the Board and the other parties at the hearing that it did not have any employees performing work on April 7, 1999 which would come under either of the two ICI provincial collective agreements who were not represented by the industrial unions which had collective agreements with the applicant. In other words, the applicant asserted that if any work was done on April 7, 1999 that might be reasonably construed as coming under either of the two ICI provincial agreements by which the applicant is bound, that work, if any, was performed by employees who were in the industrial bargaining units represented by trade unions which have collective agreements with the applicant and who were excluded from the certificates issued by the Board to Local 221 and Local 1410.

19Counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council, supported by counsel for the OPTC and Local 221 sought production or particulars of the information requested in a letter he sent to counsel for the applicant dated October 21, 1999. The letter requested the following information or productions:

“1. Details of all construction projects (including new building and renovations) by or for Alcan since January 1, 1990.

2. Details of all construction unions with whom Alcan has a collective bargaining relationship.

3. Details with respect to any relationship that Alcan has with a construction company; including any company who regularly performs construction work for Alcan.

4. A copy of the typical construction contract use by Alcan when it has construction work performed.

5. A copy of the letters patent of Alcan.

6. The number and locations of the Alcan facilities.

7. The number, classifications and duties of employees of Alcan engaged in plant construction or maintenance.”

Counsel for the applicant raised a number of objections to the request filed by the counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council. He points out that the request appears to cover all of the applicant’s facilities and construction activities around the world. If any of the material sought is relevant, which it is not he submitted, then at best, only those projects in Ontario could even come close to being relevant. With respect to items 1, 2, and 3, “details” is a vague term. The request is so imprecise as to be meaningless. As for item 4, there is no “standard” or “typical” construction contract used by the applicant. Item 5 is irrelevant because, counsel submits, it is not what the applicant is authorized to do by its incorporating documents but rather what the applicant actually does that is relevant to the issues in this case. The applicant has already provided the details requested in item 6 in relation to the province of Ontario in its application material. Item 7 is also irrelevant for the reasons the applicant had articulated earlier with respect to the request to provide the names of the persons performing work. The applicant asserted once again that none of its employees had engaged in any plant construction work at the times material to the applications.

20Following the submissions of the parties with respect to the request for particulars and productions, I made the following oral ruling with brief reasons which I have elaborated below.

As there was no serious objection raised either by counsel for Local 221 and the OPTC or counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council, the OPTC and the Millwright Council must advise counsel for the applicant and the representatives of the other parties to this proceeding who appeared at the hearing before me (United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54) of the names of any persons who were employees of the applicant on April 7, 1999 they (or any of their affiliated bargaining agents) claim they represented on that date on or before March 3, 2000. Local 221 and the OPTC and Local 1410 and the Millwright Council will not be permitted to adduce evidence at the hearings of these applications asserting that persons they represented were employees of the applicant on April 7, 1999 unless the names of those persons are provided to counsel for the applicant and the representatives of the other parties on or before March 3, 2000, except with leave of the Board.

Counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council and counsel for Local 221 and the OPTC seek production and particulars from the applicant as set out in general terms in the letter from counsel for Local 1410 dated October 21, 1999. The only information requested in that letter that might be relevant relates to the province of Ontario. What Alcan does by way of construction in other jurisdictions, either in this country or in other countries around the world does not, in my opinion, have any bearing on the issues in this case. With that initial limitation in place, counsel for the applicant advised the Board and the other parties that in respect of item 1, a list of the projects the applicant has undertaken was set out in the materials and there are no others. Counsel for Local 1410 and the Millwright Council submits that a list of construction projects is not sufficient; rather he submits that the applicant should be required to provide a list of the millwright projects it has undertaken, whether with its own employees or with subcontractors during that period of time. Counsel for the applicant submitted that providing that information was not necessary as the information sought was irrelevant. He submitted that it is only the work done by the applicant’s employees that should have a bearing on the issues, not work done on behalf of the applicant by subcontractors or other third parties with their own employees. He argued that section 127.2 (2) of the Act focuses on the employees of the employer. If the applicant employed subcontractors with their own employees to perform work in the construction industry, then their doing work would not matter since the applicant did not have any of its own employees represented by the Millwright Council or the OPTC on the application date.

The nature of the applicant’s business is a major issue in this case. The definition of “non-construction employer” in section 126 of the Act refers to a person who is either “not engaged in a business in the construction industry or whose only engagement in such a business is incidental to the person’s primary business.” Thus, it seems to me that what construction work (including repair) the applicant undertakes by using persons to perform “millwright” work or “plumbing or pipefitting” work is relevant, at the very least, to the non-construction employer issue, whether those persons are employed directly by the applicant or by third party contractors engaged by the applicant. Therefore, I am satisfied that the information sought by the Millwright Council and the OPTC is relevant and I therefore direct the applicant to prepare a list of the projects in which construction work (including repair) was done by persons engaged in the millwright trade or in the plumbing and pipefitting trade from January 1, 1990 until the date of application at the applicant’s facilities in the province of Ontario and to provide that list to counsel for the Millwright Council, counsel for the OPTC, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54 on or before March 3, 2000.

For the reasons expressed earlier, I am also satisfied that the applicant must provide particulars with respect to millwright and mechanical (plumbing and pipefitting) contractors it has regularly engaged since January 1, 1990 in the province of Ontario. Therefore I hereby direct the applicant to prepare a list of millwright contractors and mechanical (plumbing and pipefitting) contractors who have regularly performed work for the applicant in the province of Ontario between January 1, 1990 and the application date together with the dates and locations of such work.

The request for production of the letters patent of the applicant is allowed. I am of the view that the activity in which an employer is authorized to engage by its letters patent is, at best, of marginal relevance. Counsel for the Millwright Council wants to be in a position to argue, depending on what the letters patent say, that if construction activity is specifically mentioned, then that would be some evidence that construction is not merely “incidental” to the applicant’s primary business. The nature of the applicant’s business as contemplated by the persons who initially incorporated that business would be disclosed. In order to make the argument, production of the letters patent is necessary. Since it is, in my view, of marginal relevance and should be available for disclosure without undue difficulty, I direct the applicant to provide a copy of the applicant’s letters patent to the other parties on or before March 3, 2000.

Finally, the parties strongly disagreed over the request for a list of employees of the applicant who are engaged from time to time in the millwright trade or the plumbing and pipefitting trade. The applicant asserts that its employees who may be engaged in that work from time to time are subject to the collective agreements it has with the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754 or with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54 and therefore could not be relevant to whether the applicant had employees represented by the OPTC or the Millwright Council on the application date. If they came within the industrial bargaining units they were specifically excluded from the bargaining units for which Local 1410 and Local 221 and their respective employee bargaining agencies were certified.

The test for whether material must be produced for inspection prior to a hearing is not relevance, but arguable relevance, a lower standard. The information sought may well be relevant (or at least it is arguable that it is relevant) if not to the “employee” issue contained in section 127.2 of the Act, then to the non-construction employer issue. In my view, the information sought about persons employed by Alcan on April 7, 1999 who are or were employed to perform work within the millwright trade or the plumbing and pipefitting trade should be produced. Therefore, I direct the applicant to produce a list of the names of persons it employed on April 7, 1999 who are or were employed to perform work in the millwright trade or the plumbing and pipefitting trade and to provide that list to the other parties to this proceeding on or before March 3, 2000.

Counsel for the Millwright Council and Local 1410 and for the OPTC and Local 221 must advise counsel for the applicant, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754 and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54 on or before March 24, 2000 whether they claim to represent any of the employees of Alcan on the list of employees provided to them by the applicant.

21Following the Board’s determination of the production and particulars issues, the parties agreed that the Board should convene a hearing for the purpose of hearing the parties’ representations with respect to the evidentiary and legal burdens in order that the parties would have the Board’s directions on those issues before starting to call evidence at the hearings already scheduled for these two applications in April. The parties suggested that the order of proceeding and the nature of the evidence each party might wish to adduce could well depend upon which party had the legal burden of proof and the evidentiary burden to adduce evidence with respect to particular issues raised by these applications. Therefore, in consultation with the parties, the Board fixed March 27, 2000 as the date of the hearing for the purpose of hearing the parties’ representations with respect to the legal burden and evidentiary burden in this proceeding.

Summary of Orders and Directions

22The Board hereby directs:

a) the OPTC and the Millwright Council to advise counsel for the applicant and counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54 of the names of any persons who were employees of the applicant on April 7, 1999 they (or any of their affiliated bargaining agents) claim they represented on that date;

b) the applicant to prepare a list of the projects in which construction work (including repair) was done from January 1, 1990 until the date of application at the applicant’s facilities in the province of Ontario by persons engaged in the millwright trade or in the plumbing and pipefitting trade and to provide that list to counsel for the Millwright Council, counsel for the OPTC, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54;

c) the applicant to prepare a list of millwright contractors and mechanical (plumbing and pipefitting) contractors who have regularly performed work for the applicant in the province of Ontario between January 1, 1990 and the application date together with the dates and locations of such work and to provide that list to counsel for the Millwright Council, counsel for the OPTC, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54;

d) the applicant to provide a copy of the applicant’s letters patent to counsel for the Millwright Council, counsel for the OPTC, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54;

e) the applicant to produce a list of the names of persons it employed on April 7, 1999 who are or were employed to perform work in the millwright trade or the plumbing and pipefitting trade and to provide that list counsel for the Millwright Council, counsel for the OPTC, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54;

on or before March 3, 2000.

23If Counsel for the Millwright Council and Local 1410 and counsel for the OPTC and Local 221, after receiving the list of the applicant’s employees pursuant to paragraph 22(e) above, wish to assert that their clients (or any of their clients’ affiliated bargaining agents) represent any of those employees on that list, the Board directs them to advise counsel for the applicant, counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754 and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54 on or before March 24, 2000 which employees, if any, of the applicant on the list of employees provided to them by the applicant, they claim to represent. Local 221 and the OPTC and Local 1410 and the Millwright Council will not be permitted to adduce evidence at the hearings of these applications asserting that persons they represented were employees of the applicant on April 7, 1999 unless the names of those persons are provided on or before March 3, 2000, to counsel for the applicant and to counsel for the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 7949, 343 and 8754, and the representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 54 in the case of persons who are not on the list of employees provided to them by the applicant and on or before March 24, 2000, in the case of persons who are on the list of employees provided by the applicant.

24The hearing for the purpose of dealing with the parties’ representations with respect to the legal and evidentiary burdens will take place on March 27, 2000. The hearings in these applications will continue as previously scheduled on April 17, 18, 19 and 20, 2000.

25This panel of the Board remains seized with these matters.

“Harry Freedman”

for the Board