Ontario Sheet Metal Workers’ and Roofers’ Conference v. Vollmer & Associates
File Nos.: 0576-00-G; 0872-00-G Date: July 31, 2000
Applicants: Ontario Sheet Metal Workers’ and Roofers’ Conference, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 235 Responding Party: Vollmer & Associates
Before: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1The Board is in receipt of correspondence from counsel for the responding party with respect to the dates scheduled in this matter. It is apparent that his request will have to be considered by counsel for the applicant on his return on August 8 or 9, 2000. The Board directs the applicant to respond to the responding party’s request no later than 12:00 noon on August 10, 2000.
2However, the Board finds it impossible to predict the time that will be required for the hearing of these cases at this time. Board File No. 0576-00-G appears to be an application that should be purely a matter of argument. It would assist the Board in dealing with this request if the responding party were to set out the dates and times worked in the relevant period and what monies were paid or not paid or deducted for each time period. This does not appear to be an excessively onerous request in that the responding party asserts that, without prejudice, it has paid the disputed sums to the employees in question. The Board orders the responding party to file its statement of facts on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 9, 2000. If this is done, argument is unlikely to exceed half a day.
3Board File No. 0872-00-G is more problematic. (The Vice-Chair who heard these matters on July 4, 200 is currently on vacation out of the province.) The application in this file relates to discipline letters issued February 25, 2000. The grievance with reference to these notices is dated February 29, 2000. The response filed refers to a grievance filed January 15, 2000. The subject matter of the response appears to be shift premiums payable on weekends.
4This response appears to be related to the grievance filed in Board File No. 0871-00-G. That file is recorded as having been settled on July 4, 2000. The Board directs the responding party to advise the Board forthwith as to which grievance it expects is being dealt with in Board File No. 0872-00-G. The Board would request that the responding party advise whether it is possible to set out, by August 9, 2000 the same sorts of facts with respect to hours worked and monies paid (or not paid) over the relevant time period as was ordered above. If in fact it is possible to do so, the Board will expect the responding party to set those facts out in writing. If there is no substantial dispute as to the facts or payments, evidence would likely be limited to the responding party’s estoppel argument.
5The Board also directs the applicant to advise the Board in its communication of August 10, 2000 of whether there are any substantial factual differences between itself and the responding party and whether there are other factual issues that need to be addressed. Minor differences (e.g. the number of hours worked by a single individual) which would not impact on the argument of whether or not there has been a violation of the collective agreement may not need to be litigated initially, provided the Board remains seized.
6This sort of information is required for the Board to be able to assess the need for the number of hearing days necessary for the conduct of this case. That assessment obviously has a bearing on the Board’s response to counsel’s request. The Board also expects the applicant to observe a certain level of common courtesy in its response.
7I am seized of these applications.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board