Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties
2771-99-R International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786, Applicant v. Calorific Construction Limited, Bramkal Contractors Inc., Responding Parties.
2776-99-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786, Applicant v. Bramkal Contractors Inc., Responding Party v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 128, Intervenor.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and
G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 9, 2000
Decision
1Board File No. 2771-99-R is an application under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (the "Act"). Board File No. 2776-99-G is a referral of a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Act.
2On February 7, 2000, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Board requesting that pursuant to Rules 40 and 41 of the Board's Rules of Procedures, the Board deem the responding parties to have accepted all of the facts stated in its application in Board File No. 2771-99-R and to find that the responding parties constitute a common or related employer for the purposes of labour relations in accordance with section 1(4) of the Act. Alternatively, counsel for the applicant requests the Board to find that there has been a sale of a business by Calorific Construction Limited to Bramkal Contractors Inc. pursuant to section 69 of the Act.
3Rules 40 and 41 permit the Board to decide an application without the need of a hearing. For the reasons set out G.B. Metals Limited, [1993] OLRB Rep. June 503, there are good policy reasons for not expending time and resources on matters which are not in dispute or are not defended. The related employer/sale of business application was filed on December 9, 1999. The Board provided a copy of the application to the responding parties by letter dated December 16, 1999. At the request of then counsel for Bramkal Contractors Inc. the Board twice extended the deadline for filing a response. Despite the two extensions, neither of the responding parties filed a response to the application.
4Pursuant to Rule 41, the Board deems the responding parties to have accepted all the facts stated in the application in Board File No. 2771-99-R to be true. The Board will not permit any of the responding parties to file a response or any other material without leave of the Board. These facts so found do make out a prima facie case, both for the statutory pre-conditions for the exercise of the Board's jurisdiction under section 1(4) of the Act and for the exercise of that discretion in favour of the applicant. However, we are unable to do so at the present time.
5There is nothing in the file to indicate that Form B-25(a)(Notice to Employees of Application under Section 69 and Subsection 1(4) of the Act) has been posted for the employees of the responding parties. The Board notes that the applicant has provided to the Board the respective address for each of the responding parties. The applicant has further advised the Board that Bramkal Contractors Inc. is performing work at Trans Canada Pipe Line Station 12 in Marten River, Ontario.
6The Registrar is directed to extend the terminal date in this matter to March 21, 2000. The Board, pursuant to section 111(2)(g) and (h) of the Act, appoints a Labour Relations Officer to enter any premises where work is being or has been done by employees of the responding parties or on which the responding parties carries on business, whether or not the premises are those of the responding parties, and post therein or thereon Form B-25(a)(Notice to Employees of Application under Section 69 and Subsection 1(4) of the Act), in the above matter.
7I am seized of this matter and will deal with it once the terminal date is past.
"John Morgan Lewis"
for the Board