1350-99-U Marc A. Crockford, et al, Applicants v. Warehousemen, Transportation and General Workers Union, Local 715 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union District Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; National Grocers Co. Ltd., Responding Parties.
2809-99-U Raymond Lapointe, Wayne Cascanette and Perry Smith, Applicants v. Warehousemen, Transportation and General Workers Union, Local 715 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, District Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Loblaw Co. Ltd./National Grocers Co. Ltd., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 7, 2000
These are applications under section 96 of the Act which allege violations of section 74 of the Act.
Both applications relate to a series of events involving the employer’s warehouse operations in Sudbury. Both applications involve similar facts, albeit from different perspectives.
The Board is in receipt of letters from applicants or persons who purport to be applicants in Board File No. 1350-99-U, who appear to seek intervenor status in Board File No. 2809-99-U. In addition, in its response to the application in Board File No. 2809-99-U, the union requests that these applications be heard together.
Under the circumstances, and to avoid potentially inconsistent results, it is appropriate to consolidate these applications, and the Board so directs.
The responding parties in Board File No. 1350-99-U request that the application in that case be dismissed because it fails to disclose a prima facie breach of the Act. Submissions have been received on this point. The responding parties have also made a similar request in Board File No. 2809‑99-U, both on the grounds that the application does not disclose a prima facie case and that the Board does not have jurisdiction to grant any of the relief sought in the application.
It is appropriate to determine the preliminary issues at the same time. Accordingly, the applicants in Board File No. 2809-99-U shall have until February 25, 2000 to file a reply to the request by the responding parties and the employer that the application ought to be dismissed without a hearing. The reply should state whether the applicants agree or disagree with each of the statement of facts set out by the responding parties and employer, and if there is disagreement, should set out alternative facts upon which the applicants rely. The reply should also deal with the Board’s jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the application and the request that the application be dismissed without a hearing because it does not disclose a prima facie breach of the Act.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board