Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, Local 1764 v. Vagden Mills Ltd. and J. B. Field’s Inc.
0296-00-U Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, Local 1764, Applicant v. Vagden Mills Ltd. and J. B. Field’s Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Gail Misra, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Marisa Pollock and Stacy Rousseau for the applicant; Donald B. Jarvis and Bipin Khimasia for Ontario Hosiery Mfg. Co. Inc.; Tim Denton for John Timothy Denton and Diane Denton.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 29, 2000
This is an application filed pursuant to section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) regarding the failure of the responding parties to comply with the terms of a settlement.
The applicant indicated at the hearing that it is not seeking any remedy against John Timothy Denton and Diane Denton, and that they were inadvertently added as parties. The style of cause has been amended to remove these names.
Ontario Hosiery Mfg. Co. Ltd. (“Ontario Hosiery”) was named as a responding party. At the hearing Ontario Hosiery argued that it should not be named as a responding party as it was not a party to the settlement in question, and because the Board had found in November 1998 that Ontario Hosiery was released from all of the Board files which were the subject of the settlement. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Board ruled orally at the hearing that Ontario Hosiery should not be named as a responding party to this application, and that no ruling would be made affecting Ontario Hosiery. The style of cause has been amended to remove Ontario Hosiery Mfg. Co. Ltd. as a responding party.
No responses were filed with the Board by the remaining responding parties and counsel for J.B. Field’s Inc. (“Fields”) advised the Board that no one would be attending the hearing on behalf of that company. The Board waited its customary one half hour for late comers, and then proceeded with the hearing.
It appears that Fields was placed in receivership on June 6, 2000. Counsel for the applicant was advised of the receivership and contacted the Receiver, Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. on June 23, 2000 to inform it of the terms of the settlement and the amount that remained unpaid pursuant to the settlement. Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. had been appointed as the Receiver as of June 16, 2000. There were subsequent telephone conversations with the Receiver to inform the Receiver of the hearing before the Board today. The Receiver advised the applicant that there was no stay on proceedings as a term of the receivership.
The applicant asserts that the responding parties have failed to comply with the “Terms of Agreement and Settlement” reached on July 16 and August 6, 1999. Pursuant to, and as part of that settlement, the parties agreed that the responding parties would make payments to the union of a total of $124,000 in the following manner:
The Employer shall ensure payment to the Trade Union in accordance with the following schedule of payments which shall be strictly adhered to, any breach of this article shall cause the Board to award (on consent) a further ten percent (10%) on the amount not paid as well as making the entire balance payable forthwith.
(a) a payment of $15,000 on August 13, 1999;
(b) payments of $10,000 each on the 21st of each month, commencing January 21, 2000 to and including October 21, 2000;
(c) a payment of $9,000 on November 21, 2000.
The responding parties have failed to comply with the terms of the settlement and $89,000 remains outstanding and unpaid to the applicant.
The responding parties are clearly in breach of the terms of the settlement, and the Board therefore orders that they pay forthwith to the applicant the sum of $97,900 (which is comprised of the outstanding $89,000 and 10 per cent on that figure).
“Gail Misra”
for the Board