3080-94-G International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105, Applicant v. Wm. J. Davidson Electric Inc., Standard Lighting Company, Responding Parties.
0667-00-R; 0668-00-G International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105, Applicant v. William J. Davidson Electric Inc./Standard Lighting Company, Giovanni Naccarato c.o.b. as NAC Electric, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 4, 2000
1The Board has received a request from counsel for Standard Lighting Company and Giovanni Nacaratto for production of the original copies of two documents in Board File No. 3080-94-G. The purpose is apparently to have the documents examined by a document examiner for some unstated purpose. The Board notes that one of the documents appears to be a photocopy of a document sent by facsimile copier.
2The Board in the appropriate circumstances might be prepared to permit examination of documents in its files for the purpose of authentication or the verification of signatures. For the purposes of continuity of possession, as well as the Board’s needs to have available the material filed with it, it is entirely possible that such forensic examination would have to be performed in the Board’s premises, with appropriate safeguards for the preservation of the document and access by other interested parties.
3However, the Board does require an explanation of the purpose of this exercise from the party asking to examine the documents. The Board will only consider the request if it is persuaded that the examination of the documents is necessary and relevant to an issue in a proceeding before the Board. Board File No. 3080-94-G has been concluded by an order of the Board based on Minutes of Settlement among various parties. While the Board is not inclined to speculate on the reasons for the request, if the reason involves an attack on the Board’s decision in that file, it will be necessary for the party asking to bring such a challenge, to do so in the course of an application for reconsideration. In bringing such an explanation, the Board will be very interested in why it should entertain such an application at all five years and seven months after the Board’s decision.
4The request as it is presently framed is denied. Counsel may renew this application, if so instructed, addressing the issues raised in this decision.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board