1047-98-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786, Applicant v. Nickel City Steel Ltd., Cranehill Mining Services Inc., Responding Parties.
1048-98-R International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786, Applicant v. Nickel City Steel Ltd., Cranehill Mining Services Inc., Responding Parties.
3988-98-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786, Applicant v. Nickel City Steel Ltd., Cranehill Mining Services Inc., Responding Parties.
4176-98-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786, Applicant v. Nickel City Steel Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 3, 2000
1These matters are scheduled to continue on March 30 and 31, 2000. The primary issue is that raised in Board File No.1048-98-R which is an application brought pursuant to sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). In that application the responding parties have a statutory obligation to adduce at the hearing all facts within their knowledge that are material to the allegation (sections 69(13) and 1(5) of the Act). By decision dated March 9, 1999 a pre-hearing order for production issued. The Board left it to the parties to determine a time frame for review and if necessary copying of documents.
2That review was apparently partially successful but it appears that the applicants were not able to make copies of relevant documents. I note that an undertaking had been provided as to the limited use of any such documents. The list of documents ordered to be produced is lengthy as is common in these kinds of cases. I do not, it appears, have the benefit of all of the correspondence between the parties arising as a result of their attempts on the one hand, to meet the order, and on the other, to attempt to accommodate the logistics of a large production order.
3The responding parties recently assert that documents were provided and reviewed and that the applicant was satisfied that copies were not required. The responding parties assert that, apart from the material already reviewed, there are no other documents. In response the applicant asserts that it has seen only a portion of the documents requested and it seeks to be able to copy at least some of the material already viewed.
4This decision reaffirms the order made on March 9, 1999. As noted in the August 30, 1999 decision, that material was to be produced to the Board absent some copying arrangement with the applicant. No such arrangement appears to have been made. I hereby direct that the responding parties are to produce the documents listed in applicant counsel’s letter dated January 27, 1998 (sic) and the documents described at paragraph 5 of applicant counsel’s letter dated February 22, 1999. All of that material is to be produced to and filed with the Board no later than March 15, 2000. The applicant may then make arrangements with the Registrar for viewing that material prior to the hearing on the merits.
5If there is an assertion that full and complete production by the responding parties has not been effected by that date, this matter will proceed to a hearing on Friday, March 24, 2000 at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, in the “Board Room”, 2nd floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, commencing at 9:30a.m. That hearing will be for the purpose of determining whether the production order has been complied with, and if not, to hear the evidence and submissions of the parties as to why I ought not to state a case for contempt of the Board’s order in the circumstances.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board