United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256 v. Delsan Contracting Limited et al.
2973-99-G United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, Applicant v. Delsan Contracting Limited, Environmental Abatement Services Inc., Delsan Demolition Limited, Delsan Environmental Group Inc., Delsan Environmental Service Inc., Delsan Environmental Group, Philip Services Corp., Philip Environmental Services Limited, Responding Parties v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council on its own behalf and on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions 506 and 1089, Intervenors.
2977-99-U United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, Applicant v. Delsan Contracting Limited, Environmental Abatement Services Inc., Delsan Demolition Limited, Delsan Environmental Group Inc., Delsan Environmental Service Inc., Delsan Environmental Group, Philip Services Corp., Philip Environmental Services Limited, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089, Nel-tekk Industrial Specialties Inc., Reliable Systems Inc., Responding Parties.
2978-99-R United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, Applicant v. Delsan Contracting Limited, Environmental Abatement Services Inc., Delsan Demolition Limited, Delsan Environmental Group Inc., Delsan Environmental Service Inc., Delsan Environmental Group, Philip Services Corp., Philip Environmental Services Limited, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089, Nel-tekk Industrial Specialties Inc., Reliable Systems Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 15, 2000
1The Board has reviewed the submissions of the responding party Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 (“the Labourers”), and the previous correspondence among the parties, including the letter of November 7, 2000 referred to in the November 22, 2000 letter of counsel for the Labourers but not previously provided to the Board.
2First, the Board would point out that there is no discrepancy between the August 9, 2000 and the October 4, 2000 decisions of the Board. The first decision detailed what was (and was not) contained in the May 17, 2000 letter of the Labourers; the second set out the assertions of the applicant. It is not surprising that there might be a divergence in the assertions contained in these two documents.
3The Board does not propose to reconsider the August 9, 2000 decision with respect to minutes of membership meetings. However, the Board does find it appropriate to require the Labourers to produce the text of the resolutions passed at the membership meetings of October 20, 1999 and November 11, 1999 which are referred to in the Labourer’s May 17, 2000 letter. Regardless of what went on at a membership meeting, it seems appropriate to the Board to have the actual resolution which is the heart of the complaint in evidence, rather than inferring what it may or may not have said from the May 17, 200 letter. Counsel’s statement that a document, whether a photocopy of the original or not, contains the full text of the resolution will be sufficient to establish the accuracy and completeness of the document produced.
4In addition the Board directs the Labourers to produce:
All contracts, agreements, or other arrangements between the Labourers and any of the other responding parties for the erection and dismantling of scaffolding; and
All documents reflecting the purchase, sale, lease, rental, or supply of scaffold equipment by the Labourers.
It appears from counsel’s letter that this order will not produce an enormous amount of documentation.
5The Board does find that some portions of the records of the trustees of the benefit fund referred to in the Carpenters letter of June 30, 2000 are arguably relevant and would be admitted as evidence in this proceeding. If the applicant chooses to pursue this line of inquiry, however, there are obvious issues of confidentiality of personal information, and of the necessity to restrict the access of the applicant narrowly to only those portions of the records that are strictly relevant to the proceeding. The most obvious way to ensure this is to have the full set of documents reviewed by a Vice-Chair of the Board (who might then not be able to sit on the merits of the case) and extract only those portions which are strictly relevant to the proceeding.
6However, there will be no order as to production from the trustees of the benefit fund at this time. The trustees and the benefit fund itself are not parties to the proceeding. The Board has no statutory authority to require the production of documents in advance of the hearing from a non-party. Section 111(2)(b) is limited to parties to the proceeding. The documents may be compelled to be produced by way of a summons at a hearing date.
7The applicant may choose to decide to add the benefit fund to the proceeding as a party and renew its production request. If it does so, the Labourers are directed, if asked, to provide the exact name and business address of the fund and the names of the trustees from October 20, 1999 to the present. The applicant may alternatively request the Board to set a single day of hearing for the purpose of receiving such documents. However, given the process outlined above, the issue of document production should be finalized before the full hearing on the merits commences.
8The applicant is directed to advise the Board of what it wishes to do in this regard on or before January 19, 2001. I remain seized for the purposes of these preliminary issues only.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board