0868-00-JD; 0869-00-JD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 508, Applicant v. E.S. Fox Limited; International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786, Responding Parties.
0870-00-JD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Locals 508 and 628, Applicants v. E.S. Fox Ltd.; International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Locals 759 and 786; Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 397, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
APPEARANCES: L. Arnold and B. Vosper for the UA; J. Saunders for E.S. Fox Limited; G. Caroline for the Ironworkers; J. Raso for the Sheet Metal Workers; B. McNamara for the IBEW.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 14, 2000
These three files are applications brought pursuant to section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 , S. O. 1995 ch. 1 ("the Act"). As the applicant United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 508 (“the UA.”) states, all of them could have been combined in a single application. For reasons set out in the consultation briefs of the UA, they were filed separately.
This matter came on before the panel as an electronic hearing at the request of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 397 (SMWIA”). The SMWIA sought to have held in abeyance the application in Board File 0870-00-JD. It did so on the basis that counsel’s reading of the UA’s brief was that its position was that if it failed in Board File 0869-00-JD, it conceded the loss of its claim in Board File 0870-00-JD. The UA denied that this was so. The other parties expressed surprise at this position. The UA offered to clarify its position. The other parties stated they would oppose any such attempt to do so.
In the end, we did not decide this issue. The parties agreed to ask the Board to schedule a “pre-consultation” meeting for the purposes of case management. The Board agreed to do so. Accordingly, the parties are directed to attend a meeting on October 16, 2000 for the purposes of case management. The Vice-Chair of this panel will sit alone at that meeting. A consultation for all three applications is set for January 25, 2001. This Vice-Chair will not sit on that panel.
At the present time, the Board does not have any material other than the briefs filed by the UA. In theory, the rules require that the other parties file their briefs shortly. There would be little point in doing so before a case management meeting, although parties should be ready to file them reasonably quickly after that meeting, if these matters are not settled. In other words, the responding parties should be assembling the material for their briefs well before October 16, 2000, but not drafting the brief itself. Any necessary orders about the dates of filing briefs will be made, if necessary, after the case management meeting. No briefs or other pleadings are to be filed before then.
Discussion at the case management meeting is less likely to be productive if the only party’s position which is known (“clarified” or otherwise) is that of the applicant. In keeping with the tone of such a meeting, discussions should be off the record. Accordingly, we direct the parties to file a memorandum similar to a “pre-trial memorandum” required under the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Justice. Only one copy should be filed, and it should be addressed to the Vice-Chair, marked “Personal and Confidential” (which is the only way to keep it out of the Board’s files). It will be returned to counsel at the end of the meeting. No copy will be kept in the Board’s files. If the matters or any of them proceed to a consultation, no party may make any reference to anything contained in this memorandum, or anything said at the meeting, at any point in the proceedings. The memorandums should be filed on or before October 2, 2000.
There is no practice or rule of the Board with respect to such a memorandum and we do not propose to begin to create them in one decision. Obviously, a draft brief is the most useful document. A two-page statement filled with formulaic pleading and no detail is valueless. We will not require any specific standards for the memorandum, other than to observe that the parties will get out of this process what they put into it.
There should be no need to address the Board on substantive issues prior to October 16, 2000. If such a need arises, this panel is not seized of these files, and any panel which does deal with a request will not include the Vice-Chair.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board