Ontario Labour Relations Board
1085-00-R United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486, Applicant v. 739183 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as G.M. Contracting and R.L.P. Mechanical Ltd., R. L. P. Machine and Steel Fabrication Inc., Responding Parties.
1086-00-G United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486, Applicant v. 739183 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as G.M. Contracting, R. L. P. Machine and Steel Fabrication Inc., Responding Party.
1087-00-G United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486, Applicant v. R.L.P. Mechanical Ltd., R. L. P. Machine and Steel Fabrication Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 7, 2000
Reasons for Decision
1The Board, by decision dated November 1, 2000 (but not sent to the parties until November 6, 2000) in these three matters added R. L. P. Machine & Steel Fabrication Inc. as a responding party and also determined that sending documents to the responding parties at 259 Preston Lane in Timmins was sufficient to establish delivery of those documents.
2Counsel for R. L. P. Machine & Steel Fabrication Inc., by letter dated November 2, 2000 and transmitted to the Board after 4 p.m. on Friday November 3, 2000 made several procedural submissions with respect to the applicant’s request that R. L. P. Machine & Steel Fabrication Inc. be added as a responding party to the application under section 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1 as amended (Board File No. 1085-00-R). She submitted that her client ought to receive notice that it has been added as a party and be given at least 10 days to deliver a response from the date of the decision adding her client as a party. In addition, she points out that her client was not required to file a notice of intent to defend in the grievance referrals in Board File Nos. 1086-00-G and 1087-00-G as it had not been named as a party in those proceedings. She acknowledges that her client is obliged to file that notice within five days of the Board issuing a confirmation of filing of the applicant’s grievance that was referred to in its counsel’s letter of October 27, 2000. She finally submits that the Officer’s meeting scheduled for Timmins on November 21, 2000 be adjourned so that her client can properly prepare for the meeting and, in any event, requests that the location of the meeting be moved to Toronto as both her client and the applicant’s counsel are in Toronto.
3The Board agrees with counsel’s submissions with respect to both the filing of the response in Board File No. 1085-00-R and the filing of a notice of intent to defend in Board File Nos. 1086-00-G and 1087-00-G. The Board hereby extends the time for R. L. P. Machine & Steel Inc. to file its response to the application in Board File No. 1085-00-R to November 23, 2000. Since it appears that the liability of R. L. P. Machine & Steel Inc. in respect of the grievance referrals in Board File Nos. 1086-00-G and 1087-00-G will likely be dependent, in large part, on the result of the application in Board File No. 1085-00-R, it appears that the referrals to the Board in Board File Nos. 1086-00-G and 1087-00-G should be adjourned until the application in Board File No. 1085-00-R is determined. Consequently, if these two matters are adjourned, the time for filing a Notice of Intent to Defend would be extended to five days from the date that the responding parties are notified that those grievance referrals have been listed for hearing. If a party to the grievance referrals wishes to have those matters adjourned, it must seek the other parties’ consent. In the absence of consent, the Board will determine whether an adjournment is appropriate after considering the parties’ submissions.
4Since the response to the application in Board File No. 1085-00-R is not due until after the scheduled date of the Officer’s meeting, it might be appropriate for the Labour Relations Officer who has carriage of this matter to adjourn the meeting and fix another date for that meeting. That, however, is a matter for the Officer to determine, as is location of the meeting.
5The Board hereby refers these matters to the Manager of Field Services.
6This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board