3953-99-M Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1731, Applicant v. McIntosh Limousine Service Ltd., Air Cab Limousine Services (1985) Ltd., Aaroport Limousine Service Ltd., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Chair.
APPEARANCES: L. A. Richmond, G. Singh and P. Gill for the applicant; Mark A. Stone, Anne Ruddy and Y. Zahavy for the responding parties.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 28, 2000
I -Introduction
This is an application for “interim relief” that has been filed in conjunction with an unfair labour practice complaint (Board File 1002-99-U). The application for interim relief is brought pursuant to section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, which reads as follows:
(1) The Board may make interim orders concerning procedural matters on application in a pending proceeding and, with respect to the Board, the power to make interim orders under this subsection applies instead of the power under subsection 16.1 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
(2) The Board shall not make an order under subsection (1) requiring an employer to reinstate an employee in employment.
- In the course of argument, counsel for the union abandoned a number of the broader interim orders set out in Schedule AA to its application. However, the union still seeks an interim order preventing the responding companies from effecting a transfer of certain “property interests”
FROM: 807269 Ontario Limited, a company controlled by Mr. Zahavy, the owner of the responding companies
TO: A third party, Mr. Louie, who wants to purchase the property interest for $160,000.00
The nature of that “property interest” will be examined in more detail later. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that it is a contract, in the nature of a “franchise”, which the respondents have given to the numbered company, and which the numbered company and the respondents wish to assign to Mr. Louie, the third party.
The union agrees that the order it seeks is “substantive” in nature, and not merely “procedural”.
However, in order to appreciate how the request for interim relief arises, it is necessary to sketch in some background.
The Board notes that neither the numbered company nor Mr. Louie, the third party, appears to have been served with these proceedings. Nor is the numbered company, as such, named as a party respondent in this application or in the companion unfair labour practice complaint. On the other hand, it is not disputed that 807269 Ontario Limited is a corporation controlled by Mr. Zahavy, who also controls the respondents.
II – Some General Background
- The responding companies have operated limousine services at Pearson International Airport since the mid-1970s. Since about 1985, all of the responding companies have been owned and operated by Mr. Y. Zahavy. The parties are agreed that the three named respondents can be treated as “one company” for