0503-00-M Upsala Forest Products Limited, Applicant v. Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 2693, Responding Party v. Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc., Charles Parker on behalf of a group of 8 members of I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693, Intervenors.
0991-00-U Charles Parker on behalf of a group of 8 members of I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693, Applicant v. Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 2693, Responding Party v. Upsala Forest Products Limited, Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc., Intervenors.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Steve Matheson, Jim Vibert and John Taylor for Upsala Forest Products Limited; Stephen Wahl, and J. Hanlon for Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 2693; Fred Bickford and Bob Altree for Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc.; Peter Hollinger and Charles Parker for Charles Parker on behalf of a group of 8 members of I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 9, 2000
11. Board File No. 0503-00-M is a Ministerial reference in which the Minister of Labour has asked the Board whether a conciliation officer ought to be appointed in relation to the bargaining between Upsala Forest Products Limited (“Upsala”) and the Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 2693 (“IWA”).
22. Board File No. 0991-00-U is an application brought by Charles Parker on behalf of a group of 8 members of I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693 (“the group of employees”) pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) that the IWA has violated section 74 of the Act in relation to the group of employees.
33. A hearing was held in Board File 0503-00-M on November 2, 2000.
Preliminary Matters
I. Hearing Together
44. All parties at the hearing agreed that it was appropriate for the Board to hear Board File No. 0991-00-U together with Board File No. 0503-00-M and the hearing proceeded on that basis.
II. Constitutional Question
55. In Board File No. 0991-00-U the group of employees have given Notice of a Constitutional Question. When asked by the Board to explain the Constitutional Question, counsel for the group of employees stated a different Constitutional Question than the question for which notice had been provided. If the group of employees wish to have the Constitutional Question addressed, they must serve another Notice of Constitutional Question in which the question is clearly and accurately stated.
III. Standing of Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc.
66. Bowater Pulp and Paper Canada Inc. (“Bowater”) seeks intervenor status in relation to these Board Files. The IWA objects. This matter was argued by the parties at some length. Given the decision of the Board as to the procedure for the continuation of the hearing, as was outlined at the hearing and is repeated below, the Board deferred its decision on the status of Bowater until after December 14, 2000. Bowater is permitted to participate in the process outlined below. The issue of Bowater’s standing may be raised by the IWA after December 14, 2000 and if it is raised the Board will determine the status of Bowater in accordance with a process that will be outlined at the time that the issue is raised. Nothing should be taken from the fact that Bowater is listed as an Intervenor in the style of cause of this decision.
IV. Procedure
77. The Board asked the parties if the litigation could be shortened by the determination of some fundamental issues early in the hearing process. All parties agreed that there was a possibility that the determination of some fundamental issues near the outset of the hearing might shorten what otherwise appears to be quite lengthy litigation. Accordingly, the Board asked the parties to provide legal argument on the two questions outlined in paragraph eight below. In answering both questions, the Board will assume that the IWA has bargaining rights for the group of employees in relation to their employment relationships with Upsala. The Board notes that the IWA has not conceded this fact and the Board has made no finding of a bargaining relationship but will assume it for the purposes of the determination of the issues outlined below.
88. The questions upon which the Board will hear legal argument are as follows:
May a trade union unilaterally abandon its bargaining rights or must the abandonment of those rights be done in accordance with section 74 of the Act? and
What are the implications of a trade union abandoning its bargaining rights either before or after a request by another party to the Minister of Labour to appoint a conciliation officer?
99. The parties indicated that they might wish to call evidence in relation to the above questions. Upsala, the group of employees and Bowater were directed to advise the Board in writing by November 16, 2000 of the evidence that they each wish to call, if any, in relation to the questions. The IWA was directed to advise the Board in writing by November 30, 2000 of the evidence that it wishes to call, if any, in relation to the questions. If any of Upsala, the group of employees or Bowater wish to call additional evidence arising out of the evidence proposed by the I.W.A. they must advise the Board in writing by December 14, 2000. Following the receipt of this information, the Board will determine what evidence, if any, is relevant to the determination of the questions and may be addressed by the parties. The Board will advise the parties in advance of the next hearing dates of its decision.
1010. The hearing date of November 3, 2000 was adjourned on the Board’s own motion. The hearing will continue on January 18 and 19, 2001 and February 12 and 13, 2001 in Thunder Bay. The matter is referred to the Registrar for hearing arrangements.
1111. This panel is seized.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board