0947-00-U International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, Applicant v. Fowler Construction Company Ltd., Responding Party v. Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183, Intervenor.
1047-00-U Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183, Applicant v. Fowler Construction Company Ltd., Responding Party v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, Intervenor.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 24, 2000
1These matters are an application by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 (“Local 793”) and an application by Universal Workers Union, Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183 (“Local 183”) alleging violations of section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) by Fowler Construction Company Ltd. (“Fowler”). Both Local 793 and Local 183 allege that they were engaged in efforts to organize employees of Fowler during an overlapping period of time and that Fowler engaged in conduct designed to defeat the unions’ organizing campaigns in violation of various provisions of the Act.
2By way of correspondence dated July 21, 2000 counsel for Fowler asserts that these matters ought not to be consolidated and points out that neither of the applicants have requested that these matters be consolidated. Counsel further objects to the Board granting status to Local 793 to intervene in Local 183’s application and vice versa.
3While the applicants in these matters have not requested that they be consolidated or listed for hearing together, the applicants have intervened in one another’s applications. The applicants have thus expressed an interest in participating in both proceedings. Upon a review of the file it appears that a great deal of the evidence that the Board will have to hear in one of the files will, if the matters are not heard together, have to be reheard in the second file. Further, it is asserted that the organizing campaigns overlapped in time and that the Fowler’s conduct was designed to defeat both campaigns. Thus, while neither of the applicants has formally requested that these matters be heard together, it appears that it would be much more expeditious and cost efficient for the Board to hear them together. At a minimum, it is my determination that they ought to be listed for hearing together such that the evidence pertaining to both matters will be heard by the same panel of the Board.
4Accordingly, I hereby direct the Registrar of the Board to proceed with listing these matters for hearing together. The parties can address the panel assigned to hear these matters with respect to the exact procedure by which the evidence will be heard (ie. whether they will be consolidated and thus heard together or whether they will be heard sequentially and if so in what order) and whether the applicants will be granted standing to intervene in the other’s file.
5I am not seized.
“D. L. Gee”
for the Board