International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd.
3705-98-HS International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, Applicant v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., Ministry of Labour, and Inspector Vicki DiRenzo, Responding Parties.
3248-99-JD Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 506, Applicant v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 and Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 5, 2000
1By decision dated March 27, 2000 the Board directed the parties in these two matters to file submissions with the Board no later than April 4, 2000 as to the process the Board should follow in scheduling these two matters.
2As of today’s date, the only submissions to be filed with the Board are submissions on behalf of Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 506 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353. Both submissions indicate that these two matters should be listed together for a hearing/consultation such that the issues in both files would be heard concurrently as per an agreement entered into in connection with the adjournment of a hearing that had been scheduled to take place in connection with Board File No. 3705-98-HS. The Labourers, however, request that no such hearing/consultation be scheduled until such time as a decision has been released in 0048-99-HS on the basis that such file involves “substantially the same issues”. The IBEW states that the issues are not sufficiently similar to warrant awaiting the release of the decision in 0048-99-HS.
3Having regard to the submissions filed, these matters will be heard concurrently at a hearing/consultation. While the Labourers have requested that the hearing/consultation be delayed pending the outcome in Board File No. 0048-99-HS on the basis that the issues are substantially the same, such is disputed by the IBEW. In the absence of submissions setting out how the issues in dispute are similar I am unable to conclude that this matter ought to be delayed pending the outcome of another proceeding.
4The parties were asked for their submissions with the caveat that jurisdictional disputes are scheduled as a consultation and applications under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “Act”) by way of hearing. The Board does, however, pursuant to section 61(3.8) of the Act and Rule 9 of Appendix “C” of the Board’s Rules of Procedure, have the power to conduct a consultation in respect of an application under section 61 of the Act. Should the parties reach an agreement that the Board deal with these matters purely by way of consultation, the Board should be advised accordingly in order that directions can be made (failing the parties’ agreement) with respect to the exchange of briefs and documents in advance of the consultation.
5Accordingly, these matters are hereby referred to the Registrar to be listed for two days of hearing/consultation. The matters will be heard concurrently on such dates.
“D. L. Gee”
for the Board