0856-00-G International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 90, Applicant v. Otis Canada Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 1, 2000
1This is an application for the referral of a grievance to arbitration pursuant to section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (the "Act"). On September 1, 2000 the parties appeared ready to proceed. The applicant had caused a summons to be served on Mr. Rod Kearns, an appropriate person within the responding party to produce certain documents. The documents which the applicant sought did not readily exist within the responding party’s records. After some discussion the parties agreed, and the Board orders, that the following steps are to be taken before the next day of hearing:
On or before September 29, 2000 the responding party is to compile a list of its construction projects in Windsor for the previous five years indicating site location, start date of project and duration of project, and deliver this list to the applicant.
The responding party is to make available to the applicant for its inspection all existing time cards for the Local 90 area. These cards may be inspected at the responding party’s offices during business hours on reasonable notice. The inspection should be completed by mid-October.
The responding party is to provide the applicant with the home addresses of any potential management witness the applicant indicates it wishes to summons (other than Mr. Kearns, who has already been served with a summons to witness).
2Although it probably does not need to be said, the Board orders that all documents and any information disclosed through this process is to be used only for the purposes of this hearing. They are not to be disclosed nor are copies to be provided to any person not involved in this litigation and are not to be used for any other or improper purpose. The applicant is directed to ensure that the information is kept in such a manner that it does not come into the hands of any person not involved in the litigation.
3Although the parties did not address this issue, it also seems to the Board that the hearing will proceed much more expeditiously if the applicant advises the responding party of at least the projects on which and/or the individuals to whom it alleges living expenses were paid on jobs in Windsor, and the relevant time frame. Otherwise there will likely be further requests for adjournments which are not in the interests of any party.
4This matter will continue on December 7, 2000 at the assigned hearing room at 505 University Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario commencing at 9:30 a.m. I am seized of this application.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board