United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 494 v. Mady Development Corporation
3537-99-R United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 494, Applicant v. Mady Development Corporation, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and
G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 26, 2000
This is an application for certification. The applicant has requested production of certain documents in connection with the outstanding issues in this proceeding.
By correspondence dated April 17, 2000, the responding party responded to the request and produced a number (but not all) of the documents requested. By decision dated April 26, 2000, the Board directed the applicant to advise whether it continues to seek an order for production of the outstanding items and if so, to file its response to the submissions made by the responding party on this issue.
The Board has now received the applicant’s reply submissions. The applicant confirms that it continues to seek an order for production in respect of the outstanding items. It also generally submits that the documents requested are arguably relevant to the issues in the case. The applicant seeks the following additional documents:
all contracts, subcontracts or other documentation relating to work performed by the employer at the following job sites: (1) Glengarda Project (2) Rendezvous Project and (3) Southwood Lakes Project.
all contracts, sub-contracts or other documentation relating to work contracted out or sub-contracted by the employer to another person or business with respect to the following job sites: (1) Glengarda Project (2) Rendezvous Project and (3) Southwood Lakes Project.
other documents, including deficiency notices, showing work performed by all of the individuals referred to (as Domenico Decola, Dean Buxton, Ron McKeegan, Ken Hebert, Sean Strohm, Brian Jean, Gerard Meloche, Dave Tutty, Ali Ahmad and Tony Pavao, on any of the three projects listed […] above.
By correspondence dated May 23, 2000, the responding party filed further submissions in response to the applicant’s request. The responding party indicates that it is now prepared to provide the documentation that falls within the parameters of subparagraph 3 above, being a deficiency correction order. The responding party further indicates that this document is being provided to the applicant with a copy of its letter to the Board dated May 23, 2000. As it appears that the responding party has now provided the documentation requested under subparagraph 3 above to the applicant, no order for production is necessary with respect to that item.
Having considered the submissions of the parties with respect to the other outstanding items, the Board finds that the documents requested are arguably relevant to the issues in the present certification proceeding to the extent that they relate to work performed on the date of application. These issues include the nature of the work performed by those individuals in dispute working at the Glengarda Project, the Rendezvous Project or the Southwood Lakes Project on the date of application and the identity of their respective employer. Since only the work performed on the date of application is relevant, the Board limits its order with respect to the documents requested accordingly. The order is not, however, limited to documents relating to carpentry work performed, since the nature of the work performed by certain disputed individuals is in issue in this proceeding.
The Board therefore orders the responding party to produce the following documents to the applicant within twenty (20) days of the date of this decision:
all contracts, subcontracts or other documentation, if any, relating to work performed by the employer or contracted out or subcontracted by the employer to another person or business on the date of application at the following job sites: (1) Glengarda Project, (2) Rendezvous Project, and (3) Southwood Lakes Project.
In making this order, the Board notes that it does not appear, at this stage, that the financial information relating to the contracts or subcontracts or other documents are relevant to the issues in this proceeding. Accordingly, the responding party may, if it chooses, delete any sensitive financial information on the copies of these documents provided to the union. Any documents produced in response to this order are not, in any event, to be used for purposes unrelated to this proceeding and should be returned, together with any copies thereof, to the responding party upon the completion of this proceeding, unless they have been entered as exhibits.
If the documents requested do not exist, they obviously cannot be produced. Any documents listed which are in the possession, care or control of the responding party must be produced to the applicant, as ordered.
Any disputes over production of any of the documents can be addressed at the hearing.
This panel is not seized.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board