Ontario Labour Relations Board
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.
APPEARANCES: M. Gottheil for the applicant; T. Hawtin for Spud Erectors Inc.; no one appearing for Big ‘B’ Steel Erectors Inc. or 1246074 Ontario Limited c. o. b. as Sunset Construction
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 22, 2000
Decision
1This is an application for a reconsideration of the Board’s decision of August 23, 2000 by Spud Erectors Inc. (“Spud”) one of the responding parties in this matter. That decision was predicated on a refusal by Spud to comply with the direction in the Board’s decision of July 21, 2000. The July 21, 2000 decision was sent by courier to Spud. Normally the Board prefers to send short decisions by facsimile copier to ensure speedy delivery to parties. Although Spud has such a facsimile copier, it had not given the Board the number as required by the rules. In addition it had discharged its solicitor so that no decision was sent to counsel for Spud.
2Mr. Steven Belford, principal of Spud, gave evidence before the Board that he did not receive the Board’s decision. The Board’s courier service was able to produce business records that indicated all of the other correspondence from the Board had been delivered to the address for Spud, but could not do so for the July 21 decision. Notwithstanding the reservations the Board had about the evidence given by Mr. Belford, in the absence of the normal business records indicating delivery, the Board must conclude that Spud was not served with the July 21 decision.
3It is a basic principle of natural justice that if a tribunal contemplates that it may make a decision affecting the rights of a party, that party must have adequate notice of that possibility. Notice in the circumstances of this case might have been given in one of two ways. It might have been given by the Board by delivering the decision to the address given for service by a party. Alternatively, in this case, notice might have been given by a party by delivering a copy of the Board’s decision to Spud. A copy of the decision is required; it is not enough to send a letter indicating that a decision exists which may contain matters of importance to the addressee. In this case neither of these events occurred.
4Accordingly, pursuant to section 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995 ch. 1 the Board reconsiders and revokes the decision of August 23, 2000 insofar as it applies to Spud Erectors Inc. only. This matter is set to resume on October 12, 2000 in the manner directed in a decision of even date hereof.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board