0124-98-R United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46, Applicant v A & E Plumbing Ltd., Jade Mechanical Inc., Victory Plumbing Inc., Kipling Plumbing & Bath Centre, Responding Parties, v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Intervenor.
0399-98-R Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Applicant v. A & E Plumbing Ltd., Responding Party, v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46, Intervenor .
0688-98-G United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46, Applicant v. A & E Plumbing Ltd., Jade Mechanical Inc., Victory Plumbing Inc., Kipling Plumbing & Bath Centre, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 9, 2000
The Board, differently constituted, by decision in these matters dated October 13, 1999, determined that the failure of Victory Plumbing Inc. and Kipling Plumbing & Bath Centre to comply with the Board’s earlier orders and directions necessitated an application by way of a stated case to the Divisional Court pursuant to section 13(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. S. 22 as amended.
The Chair of the Board authorized me to determine these matters pursuant to section 110(14)(a) of the Act.
The Board wrote at paragraph 8 of its October 13, 1999 decision:
“There is no doubt that the responding parties Victory Plumbing Inc. and Kipling Plumbing & Bath Centre have failed to comply with the Board’s orders and directions contained in the decisions of December 8, 1998 and July 21, 1999. The Board will therefore state a case to the Divisional Court requesting that each of Victory Plumbing Inc. and Kipling Plumbing & Bath Centre be found to be in contempt of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and that they be punished in the same manner as if they had been found to be in contempt of the Court.
Due to an administrative oversight, the Board’s solicitors were not actually instructed to initiate the proceedings contemplated by paragraph 8 of the Board’s October 13, 1999 decision and had not even been made aware of that decision until February 8, 2000. The Board had scheduled a continuation of the hearings in these matters for February 15 and 16, 2000. As the necessary application to the Divisional Court has not been commenced, let alone completed, the Board is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the hearing on those two dates. Therefore, the hearings in these matters are adjourned pending the disposition of the application to the Divisional Court under section 13 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
These matters will come back before the Board for the continuation of the hearings on either the earliest possible date after the determination of the application before the Divisional Court or at the request of counsel for either of the applicants, should the applicant obtain the necessary documents and information from the responding parties.
These matters are referred to the Board’s solicitors for the purpose of forthwith making the application to the Divisional Court as contemplated by the Board’s October 13, 1999 decision.
This panel of the Board is not seized with these matters.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board