3278-99-R; 3921-99-U United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Matcor Automotive Inc., Responding Party.
APPEARANCES: David Doorey, Brando Paris, Gerry Doucet, Travis Kearns and Hikmart Bilal for the applicant; Gregory McGinnis and Bernie Brunino for the responding party.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 11, 2000
1The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: “Matcor Automotive Inc.”.
2A hearing in these matters was held on February 10, 2000.
3At the hearing a number of issues were raised by the applicant in relation to production of documents in Board File No. 3278-99-R.
4At the hearing counsel for the responding party filed with the Board and with counsel for the applicant a number of documents relating to the issues in question. Counsel for the applicant had not as of the date of hearing had an opportunity to review such documentation.
5The Board, however, after hearing submissions from the parties did make two oral rulings concerning production:
that the employer produce by April 24, 2000 to counsel to the applicant documentation relating to 37 individuals, set out as Schedule “A” to the counsel for the applicant’s letter dated March 17, 2000. Such information should be in the format as the documentation provided to the applicant as set out in paragraph 4;
that the employer is directed by Monday, May 8, 2000 to produce for the union’s inspection all employment records relating to persons employed by ARG, or retained by Matcor through the auspices of ARG, who performed work at Matcor during the six months prior to the application for certification, including records showing dates on which these persons worked, the source of the remuneration, the duties they performed and the precise location of the employer at which ARG Construction employees worked.
6If any problems arise concerning production issues as a result of the documents produced by counsel for the responding party at the hearing to counsel for the applicant, or as a result of the production ordered in paragraph 5, submissions may be made to the Board on such concerns.
7In relation to Board File No. 3921-99-U such matter shall be scheduled for hearing at the same time as Board File No. 3278-99-R. Any submissions as to whether these files should or should not be consolidated may be argued when the hearing resumes.
8I remain seized.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board