0865-99-U Robert Frangos and Sergio Noblione, Applicants v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, CLC, AFL-C10, Soft Drink Workers Joint Local Executive Council, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 393W, Responding Parties v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 27, 2000
This is an application for reconsideration of a decision made March 17, 2000 (as amended by a decision of the Board dated March 30, 2000) filed by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (the “International”).
In the decision of March 17, 2000 it was pointed out that no party contested that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 393W (Local 393W) “held the bargaining rights at the Downsview location in question”.
Further in that decision the Board ruled that “the application is dismissed as against the International and the Soft Drink Joint Executive Counsel”.
Paragraph 10 of that decision stated that “Counsel for the International sought intervenor status and wished to present evidence relating to the original decision of Local 393W not to pursue the grievances of the applicants. Since that original refusal the executive of Local 393W has changed. The two applicants are currently on such executive”.
Paragraph 13 of that decision noted that “counsel for the employer made no submissions during the course of the proceedings”.
Ultimately the Board found, that given the admission of Local 343W, it had breached section 74 of the Act.
The International in its request for reconsideration requests that the Board reconsider its decision “in two (2) material respects set out herein as:
(a) The Board should reconsider its decision in denying the International intervenor status;
(b) The Board should reconsider its decision in accepting the admission of Local 393W without a hearing into the merits of the case and without hearing any evidence or submissions by the parties”.
In an extensive submission, counsel requested that the Board reconsider its decision denying the International standing in the proceeding. Counsel seeks an amicus curiae standing and quotes extensively from Ontario Hydro, [1997] OLRB No. 2548. As that case points out amicus curiae status “which is invoked as a matter of the Board’s discretion” has rarely been granted.
Given the circumstances of this case where the application is dismissed as against the International, the Board is not prepared to reconsider its decision and invoke its discretion to grant the International standing.
Having not granted status to the International, it has no status to bring an application for reconsideration based upon the Board’s ruling in regard to its finding that Local 393W had breached section 74 of the Act.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board