National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Magna Seating Systems Inc.
1934-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Magna Seating Systems Inc., Integram Windsor Seating Division, Responding Party v. Group of Employees, Intervenors.
2029-99-U Magna International Inc. and Magna Seating Systems Inc., Integram Windsor Seating Division, Applicants v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW Canada), Basil Hargrove, Sam Gindin and Ken Lewenza, Responding Parties v. Group of Employees, Intervenors.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Frank Luce, Buddie Kitchen, Ron Morris, Dennis Chadwick and Tim Bechard for the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada); Charles R. Robertson and Robert A. J. Landry for the Magna International Inc. and Magna Seating Systems Inc., Integram Windsor Seating Division; Michael A. Wills, Janice Dow and Terri Mangile for the Group of Employees.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 9, 2000
Decision
1In these two applications, the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (“the CAW”) and Magna Seating Systems Inc., Integram Windsor Seating Division (“Integram”) agreed that the Board should proceed first to hear and determine the appropriate bargaining unit, then deal with the other issues outstanding in the certification application and then proceed, if necessary, with the application filed by Integram and Magna International Inc. against the CAW and certain individuals. The intervening group of employees did not oppose proceeding in that way. The evidence led with respect to the bargaining unit issue took up seven hearing days during which 69 exhibits were filed comprising hundreds of pages of documents.
2At the conclusion of the testimony of the witness called by the intervening employees on June 8th, counsel for the CAW advised that the CAW would not be calling any evidence with respect to the bargaining unit issue. (Integram had previously completed its case on the bargaining unit issue.) The Board had earlier scheduled hearing dates in January and February 2001 for the continuation of these maters. The Board determined that rather than waiting until the next scheduled hearing dates to receive argument, the Board, on the agreement of the parties, would fix earlier dates in the autumn to receive argument on the bargaining unit issue.
3Therefore, the Board, on agreement of the parties, fixes November 2 and 3, 2000 for the hearing of argument on the bargaining unit issue. The CAW is directed to deliver a written outline of its argument to the other parties and to the Board on or before October 19, 2000. Integram and the intervening employees are directed to each deliver their respective written outline of their arguments to the CAW and to the Board on or before October 30, 2000. The parties are also directed to file with the Board a joint book of authorities at the commencement of the hearing on November 2nd.
4These matters will proceed before this panel of the Board for the hearing of argument on November 2 and 3, 2000. These applications will also continue before this panel of the Board on the hearing dates previously scheduled.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board