Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties
2403-98-R; 2405-98-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721, Applicant v. Big “B” Steel Erectors Inc., 1246074 Ontario Limited, c.o.b. as Sunset Construction, Spud Erectors Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and A. Haward.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 8, 2000
Decision
1These two applications are brought pursuant to subsection 1(4) and 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, ch.1 (the “Act”) and section 133 of the Act. The panel has been advised that the parties sought to have the Board schedule this matter to allow one day of hearing to deal with issues arising from the production of documents. It is not obvious that the Board or the parties should be spending scarce hearing time dealing with questions of document production and we propose to deal with any issues by way of written submissions prior to the hearing.
2This panel has already made one order with respect to the production of documents, in paragraph 20 of the decision dated December 15, 1999. All of the documents listed therein should have been produced by now. Assuming that the responding parties have complied with the Board’s direction, we can only conclude that a review of those documents has led the applicant to request that further documents be produced. This is not at all unusual given that the applicant will not usually have much information about matters internal to a responding party. In addition, subsection 1(5) of the Act provides:
- (5) Where, in an application made pursuant to subsection (4), it is alleged that more than one corporation, individual, firm, syndicate or association or any combination thereof are or were under common control or direction, the respondents to the application shall adduce at the hearing all facts within their knowledge that are material to the allegation.
There is therefore, an obligation on the responding parties to disclose information, which usually involves to some extent, the production of documents. Since the Board’s test for the production of documents where production is appropriate is whether or not the document is arguably relevant, there should be relatively few disagreements about relevance.
3Accordingly, we direct the applicant to advise the Board by February 25, 2000 of the documents which it says have not yet been produced, or which it wishes the Board to order any party to produce, along with brief reasons as to why the additional documents should be produced. On or before March 16, 2000 the responding parties are directed to produce the documents requested to the applicant, undertake to produce them before March 28, 2000, or to make its submissions with respect to why it ought not to produce the documents sought. Within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is not open) after the date on which the last of the documents is produced, or on April 11, 2000 (whichever comes first) the applicant is directed to advise the Board of any documents promised but not yet produced, and of its submissions as to why the Board should grant any additional order for production. The Board will then make such orders as are necessary.
4Parties are directed not to file copies of documents with the Board unless it is necessary to do so for purposes of explaining why production of other documents is sought. All submissions to the Board are to be copied to all other parties. The Board does not expect there to be any issues with respect to document production remaining after this process is complete, and will be extremely reluctant to entertain any argument about document production which could have been addressed prior to April 11, 2000. The parties are not to vary the schedule for filings set out above without the consent of the Board. In light of this decision about the manner in which this issue is being handled, April 11, 2000 will be deemed to be a further day of hearing for the purposes of paragraph 7 of the December 15, 1999 decision in these applications. We remain seized for the purposes of completing the production issues.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board