Upsala Forest Products Limited v. Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 2693
0503-00-M Upsala Forest Products Limited, Applicant v. Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 2693, Responding Party v. Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc.; Charles Parker on behalf of a group of 8 members of I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693, Intervenors.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 8, 2000
1Subsequent to the Board’s decision of June 30, 2000, and pursuant to the directions therein contained, the Board received submissions from Upsala Forest Products Limited (“the employer”) and from a group of employees whose submissions were received in the form of an intervention. Although not directed by the Board to do so, the intervenor Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc. also filed brief submissions. These submissions addressed the issue of the responding party’s claim to have abandoned its bargaining rights, and its assertion that, accordingly, the Board should disregard the initial submissions of the employer in support of the appointment of a conciliation officer, without conducting a hearing. The applicant urged the Board to advise the Minister of Labour that he was without authority to appoint a conciliation officer in light of the applicant’s claim to have abandoned its bargaining rights.
2All parties who filed submissions took the position that the applicant had not, as a matter of fact, abandoned its bargaining rights, and could not do so in the circumstances of this case. They also took the position that the Board cannot dismiss, without a hearing, a reference from the Minister of Labour under Rule 46 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure, because such a reference is not an application within the meaning of Rule 46; and further, that the issues in this matters are sufficiently novel and complex to warrant a full hearing in any event.
3Having reviewed and considered the submissions of the parties referred to above, it is the Board’s view that the complexity of the issues raised in this matter warrants a hearing. It is therefore unnecessary to deal with the submissions concerning the applicability of Rule 46 to a reference from the Minister of Labour.
4The Registrar is directed to set this matter down for hearing.
5All parties, save the applicant, have asked that the hearing in this matter be scheduled in Thunder Bay, Ontario. At this time, the Board’s policy on hearing location has not changed, although there is a possibility that it will be in the foreseeable future. The parties may renew their request regarding the hearing location by contacting the Registrar prior to the date set for the hearing.
6We are not seized.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board