Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1081 v. Doug Wright Construction Ltd.
3685-99-G Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1081, Applicant v. Doug Wright Construction Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 30, 2000
Decision
1The Board has received a letter from the responding party which appears to be a form of request for reconsideration. If so, it is not on the proper form, nor does it provide all of the information required for such an application. However, the Board is prepared to deal with it in a preliminary manner.
2The responding party asserts that it was under no obligation to file a Notice of Intent to Defend as the matter was settled within the five day period following the delivery to it of the Confirmation of Filing. We leave aside any discussion about the ability to deal with a submission from a party who has not properly filed a Notice of Intent to Defend (see rule 162). The difficulty in this case is that the responding party did not bother to tell the Board that it believed it had settled the grievance. Indeed, on March 23, 2000 the responding party faxed to the Board a letter advising a Labour Relations Officer that no one from the responding party would attend a scheduled settlement meeting, as the company’s representative would be out of the province on that day. One would have thought that if the matter had been settled on March 20, 2000 as the responding party asserts, that would have been a relevant detail to mention at that time. In any event, an assertion that a grievance has been settled is a good defence to the attempt to litigate the grievance. It is, however, necessary to actually plead such a defence, or alternatively plead that the quantum of damages is excessive, in a timely manner before the Board can deal with it. Accordingly none of these submissions, of themselves, would cause the Board to reconsider its decision.
3There is one assertion that does raise a question in the Board’s mind. The responding party asserts it did not receive a copy of the Form A-87. The referral contains a Certificate of Service indicating that this was one of the documents served on the responding party as part of the filing of this application. This may be a matter of some importance as it goes to the sufficiency of the filing of the application. The Board directs the applicant to advise the Board to respond to this allegation within five working days of
the date of this decision, and to provide a copy of this response to the responding party at the same time. The responding party will have three working days following the date on which it receives such submissions to file any reply with the Board and the applicant.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board