Ontario Labour Relations Board
2603-00-G Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Simplex Drywall Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 16, 2000
This is referral of a grievance to the Board for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the “Act”).
The matter is scheduled to be heard on January 19, 2001.
The Board is in receipt of a letter from counsel for the responding party dated January 12, 2001. There are two requests contained in that correspondence. Firstly, counsel makes a request for particulars and secondly counsel has asked for production of documents.
The issue in the grievance is the allegation that bargaining unit work has been performed in violation of the collective agreement between The Carpenters Employer Bargaining Agency (E.B.A.) and The Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (C.D.C.) (the “Carpenters’ Provincial Collective Agreement”) The applicant’s position is that the violation arises out of the alleged hiring of non-union workers to perform bargaining unit work on various job sites in the greater Toronto area. In support of this and further to its damage claim the applicant has provided a series of payroll cheques. The responding party’s position, as set out in counsel’s correspondence of January 12, 2001 is that none of the persons for whom the payroll cheques have been filed have performed bargaining unit work for the responding party. Further, the responding party advises that the applicant has indicated that it will provide any additional particulars it considers necessary by January 15, 2001. In addition the applicant has indicated it will call as witnesses the individuals to whom the cheques relate.
The responding party contends that it requires the following particulars:
Who has the Responding Party allegedly engaged to improperly perform work covered by the Carpenters Provincial Collective Agreement;
When was the subject work performed by each of the persons allegedly engaged by the Responding Party;
What kind of work was performed on those occasions and by whom; and
Where was the subject work performed by each of the persons allegedly hired by the Responding Party.
The determination that appears to be at issue is whether the work performed was bargaining unit work, as the applicant claims or whether it was not, as the responding party claims. The applicant has provided photocopies of cheques and lists containing dates and amounts related to these cheques.
The responding party knows the case it has to meet and has asserted that in fact the individuals upon whom the applicant relies did not perform bargaining unit work. Having reviewed the application, the material filed and the responding party’s submissions, I find the application to be sufficiently particularized.
The responding party’s second request deals with production of documents. Counsel for the responding party further requests production of “…any and all documents (which have not already been produced) upon which the Union intends to rely. Rule 36 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provide that:
Each party must file with the Board not later than ten (10) days before the first date set for hearing or consultation three (3) copies of all documents upon which it will be relying in the case (for the use of the panel). At the same time, each party must deliver copies of those documents to each of the other parties.
The responding party’s request is no more than a request for the Board to restate Rule 36. In the event that the applicant has failed to comply with the Board’s Rules of Procedure in respect of production of document or if other documents are required to be produced, those matters can be raised with the panel scheduled to hear this application. The responding party’s request is denied.
I am not seized.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board