Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Mardave Construction (1990) Ltd.
3247-99-G Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183, Applicant v. Mardave Construction (1990) Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and A. Haward.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 14, 2000
1By decision in this matter dated February 9, 2000, the Board directed the applicant to deliver to the Board the evidence it relies on to establish that the documents it certified as having been sent to the responding party by facsimile transmission were actually received by the responding party.
2Counsel for the applicant advised the Board that although it had completed the certificate of delivery in good faith believing that the documents had been sent by facsimile transmission to the responding party, those documents had been sent to the wrong facsimile number. The responding party’s facsimile number is (416) 741-4791. That was the number the applicant indicated on the certificate of delivery. In fact, the applicant acknowledges that it had inadvertently sent the documents to (416) 741-4191. The party receiving those documents did not advise the applicant they had been sent to the wrong number. Thus, it is clear that the applicant had not effected delivery of the necessary material upon the responding party before filing this application with the Board as required by Rule 155.
3In the Board’s February 9th decision, we observed that the application documents comprised over 125 pages of material. Counsel for the applicant in his letter to the Board stated:
“The Union notes that the Collective Agreements referred to in the Referral were not included in the facsimile transmission to the Responding Party, but were sent to the Responding Party by regular mail. That the Collective Agreements were not included in the facsimile transmission, but were rather sent by mail, was clearly set out in the materials faxed to the Responding Party;”
There was no indication in the certificate of delivery or in the other material filed with the Board that only some of the documents comprising the referral had been sent to the responding party prior to the referral being filed with the Board. While the applicant may have “clearly set out in the materials faxed to the Responding Party” the fact that the collective agreements were not included in the facsimile transmission, the applicant did not advise the Board of that fact. Indeed, the applicant indicated the opposite in the material it filed with the Board. We note that the applicant’s letter to the Board dated February 3, 2000 stated that the applicant was filing with the Board “1 original and 4 copies of a Referral of Grievance to Arbitration (Construction Industry) which has been delivered, along with the other required documents to the Responding Party, in accordance with the Boards Rules of Procedure.” The documents the applicant said had been delivered to the responding party included the two collective agreements appended to the referral documents. While it is not necessary to decide at this point whether delivery to the responding party of only some documents comprising the referral prior to filing the referral with the Board meets the requirements of the Board’s Rules, it is by no means certain that the applicant’s decision to send the collective agreements by mail when they are a part of the referral documents, and deliver the other documents by facsimile transmission with the result that some part of the referral material is delivered to the responding party after the referral is filed with the Board complies with the Board’s Rules.
4The applicant, having acknowledged its failure to comply with the Board’s rules with respect to delivery of the referral documents to the responding party, requests leave of the Board to withdraw this referral.
5This referral of a grievance to the Board for determination is withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board