Ontario Labour Relations Board
0839-00-R; 0903-00-U United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 221, Applicant v. Prime Mechanical Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 28, 2000
These matters are an application for certification pursuant to the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) and a related application pursuant to section 96 of the Act.
A representation vote has been held in connection with the certification application and post-vote submissions have been filed with the Board.
A request has been made that the hearing with respect to these matters be held in Ottawa. The Board’s current practice is that the first two days of hearing with respect to a certification application are held in Toronto following which the Board will consider a request to move the venue of the hearing. Accordingly, the initial two days of any hearing held in respect of these matters will take place in Toronto. The request for a change in venue to Ottawa can be renewed following the two days of hearing in Toronto.
These two matters are to be listed for hearing together.
The order of proceedings will be determined by the panel of the Board assigned to hear the matters, however, the parties’ attention is directed to Information Bulletin No. 9 which states that the party that asserts an individual is on the list is responsible for the individual’s attendance at the hearing and is responsible for calling that individual as a witness.
The applicant has requested that it be provided with originals of the documents that the responding party has filed with the Board. The responding party is hereby directed to make the originals of the documents that it has filed with the Board available to the applicant for its inspection.
The applicant has challenged a number of the individuals on the basis that they do not hold a certificate of qualification or apprenticeship papers. The responding party has produced copies of a certificate of qualification or apprenticeship papers for a number of the people challenged. It appears that this information may have some impact on the parties’ positions. Further, given that the applicant does not appear to be contesting that the four projects listed by the employer were in fact in progress at the time of the application, the applicant’s request for document production appears to be fairly broad. Thus, the Board declines to make the production order sought by the applicant at this time. The applicant is free to renew its request after having examined the originals of the documents filed by the employer should it wish to do so. Any further request should include a brief description of the relevance of the documents being sought.
These matters are hereby referred to the Registrar to be listed together for a day of hearing in Toronto.
I am not seized.
“D. L. Gee”
for the Board