Court File and Parties
2973-99-G United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, Applicant v. Delsan Contracting Limited, Environmental Abatement Services Inc., Delsan Demolition Limited, Delsan Environmental Group Inc., Delsan Environmental Service Inc., Delsan Environmental Group, Philip Services Corp., Philip Environmental Services Limited, Responding Parties.
2977-99-U United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, Applicant v. Delsan Contracting Limited, Environmental Abatement Services Inc., Delsan Demolition Limited, Delsan Environmental Group Inc., Delsan Environmental Service Inc., Delsan Environmental Group, Philip Services Corp., Philip Environmental Services Limited, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089, Nel-tekk Industrial Specialties Inc., Reliable Systems Inc., Responding Parties.
2978-99-R United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, Applicant v. Delsan Contracting Limited, Environmental Abatement Services Inc., Delsan Demolition Limited, Delsan Environmental Group Inc., Delsan Environmental Services Inc., Delsan Environmental Group, Philip Services Corp. Philip Environmental Services Limited, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089, Nel-tekk Industrial Specialties Inc., Reliable Systems Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 9, 2000
Decision
1These are three matters scheduled for hearing before the Board in September and December 2000: Board File No. 2973-99-G is a referral of a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Act; Board File No. 2977-99-U is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1 (the "Act"); and Board File No. 2978-99-R is an application under sections 69 and 1 (4) of the Act. The Alternate Chair of the Board authorized me to determine these matters alone pursuant to section 110 (14) of the Act.
2The Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089 (“Local 1089”) is named as a responding party in the section 69 and 1(4) and section 96 applications and has sought to intervene in the grievance referral.
3Counsel for the applicant, by letter dated June 30, 2000, advised the Board and the other parties to these proceedings that the applicant intended at the hearings of these matters to rely on a letter from Local 1089 to its members dated May 17, 2000. That letter indicates that the members of Local 1089 had, at a general membership meeting in October, 1999 and at a special called meeting in November 1999, instructed the Business Manager
to amend the Benefit Trust Agreement by Resolution to instruct the Trustees to invest in a Corporation or other entity whose intended primary purpose is to purchase, lease and or manufacture scaffolding equipment with the intended purpose of aiming to create employment opportunities for the members of Local 1089 and at the same time it should result in an increase to the returns presently being earned on those invested assets.
The letter goes on to set out in detail what steps have been taken by Local 1089 in furtherance of that resolution.
4Counsel for the applicant also requests in his June 30, 2000 letter that Local 1089 produce minutes of the two membership meetings referred to in its May 17, 2000 letter, the amendments to the trust funds and the minutes of the trustee meetings relating to investment into scaffolding or other contractors. Counsel for Local 1089 resists the production request on the grounds that the documents sought are irrelevant to the issues in the case, given that Local 1089 is prepared to stipulate that it sent the letter of May 17, 2000 (and presumably is prepared to agree that the contents of that letter are true) and in any event, on the grounds that the documents should not be produced until the motion made by the Local 1089 and the other responding parties to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case for the relief requested is determined by the Board.
5The documents requested by the applicant are clearly not relevant to the issues raised in Board File No. 2973-99-G as that matter is a grievance relating to work performed at the Bayer site in Sarnia with respect to a type 2 enclosure for asbestos removal. The grievance is dated October 25, 1999 and was filed with the Board on January 6, 2000.
6The allegations raised in Board File No. 2977-99-U relate to a relationship between several of the responding parties pursuant to which, the applicant alleges, Local 1089’s members would be hired to perform the work of the applicant through the use of companies whose principals are family members of officers of Local 1089. The letter of May 17, 2000 makes reference to investing in companies in the scaffolding industry, but does not indicate who the companies might be. Thus, it seems that the minutes of the trustees’ meetings after November 1999 relating to investment in scaffolding contractors are at least arguably relevant, as they may relate to the applicant’s allegations concerning a relationship among the responding parties. The balance of the documents requested by the applicant do not appear to even meet the test of arguable relevance since neither the actual minutes of the membership meetings nor the amendments to the trust funds are in issue, particularly since Local 1089 is prepared to acknowledge that it was responsible for the May 17, 2000 letter to its members.
7Despite some of the documents requested being arguably relevant, I am not prepared to order their production at this time as the responding parties wish to argue that the applications should be dismissed. In my view, that preliminary matter should be determined before directing production of the documents. Therefore, the request for production of documents requested by counsel for the applicant in his letter of June 30, 2000 is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the applicant to renew that request in respect of minutes of trustees’ meetings at the hearing of these matters should the Board dismiss the request to dismiss these applications.
8This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board