1584-99-U Teamsters Local Union #230, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Applicant v. Lafarge Canada Inc., Responding Party.
0532-00-U Lafarge Canada Inc., Applicant v. Teamsters Local Union 230, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
APPEARANCES: David Cass, Norm Jesin, Rene Bissonnette, John Burt and Dan Ranger for the employer; Erin R. Kuzz, John O’Brien, Tony Johnson and Joseph Liberman for the union.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 30, 2000
Board File 1584-99-U is an application made by the Teamsters Local Union 230, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (hereafter “the Teamsters”) pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) that the responding party, Lafarge Canada Inc. (hereafter “Lafarge”) has violated sections 17, 70, 72 and 76 of the Act.
Board File 0532-00-U is an application brought by Lafarge pursuant to section 96(7) of the Act that the Teamsters have failed to comply with a settlement. The subject matter of this application is an alleged settlement of Board File 1584-99-U. For this reason, the Board heard submissions in relation to Board File 0532-00-U first.
Board File 0532-00-U
Lafarge takes the position that there was a settlement of Board File 1584-99-U. Lafarge produced a written Memorandum of Settlement that was signed by the representative of Lafarge but was not signed by the representative of the Teamsters.
The Teamsters take the position, by way of a preliminary motion, that since the settlement was not signed by the representative of the Teamsters that it could not have failed to comply with a settlement in accordance with section 96(7) of the Act. That section of the Act states,
(7) Where a proceeding under this Act has been settled, whether through the endeavours of the labour relations officer or otherwise, and the terms of the settlement have been put in writing and signed by the parties or their representatives, the settlement is binding upon the parties, the trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee who have agreed to the settlement and shall be complied with according to its terms, and a complaint that the trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee who has agreed to the settlement has not complied with the terms of the settlement shall be deemed to be a complaint under subsection (1).
The Board agreed with the Teamsters at the hearing and dismissed the application in Board File 0532-00-U. Where, as here, the settlement is not signed by the parties, section 96(7) has no application and the Board must dismiss an application brought pursuant to section 96(7). In dismissing the application, the Board noted that Lafarge may raise in Board File 1584-99-U that, despite the fact that the written Memorandum of Settlement was not signed by the Teamsters, the matter was settled by way of an oral agreement.
Board File 1584-99-U
Both parties in their opening statements took the position that there was an oral agreement entered into by the principals of the parties. Unfortunately, they disagreed as to the contents of that agreement. Lafarge took the position that the oral agreement of the parties was accurately reflected in the written Memorandum of Settlement signed by a representative of Lafarge and presented to the Teamsters to be executed. The Teamsters took the position that the written Memorandum of Settlement contained a term on which the parties had not reached agreement. That term was contained in the last sentence of paragraph four of the written Memorandum of Settlement. It stated that “(t)his paragraph shall be added as a Letter of Understanding to Stittsville and Bear Brook Collective Agreements.”
Following the oral agreement, both parties indicated that the matter was referred to counsel to draft the written settlement. It is at this point that the parties differ as to what occurred and the Teamsters take the position that, since the written agreement did not reflect the terms as it understood them, there was no agreement ever reached.
Both parties stated that the written Memorandum of Settlement was presented to the Teamsters. The Teamsters stated that its representatives indicated that the document did not reflect the oral agreement of the parties, that a term had been added, that the term was not agreeable and that as a result there was no agreement and ended settlement discussions. The Teamsters also indicated that when counsel for Lafarge was told that there was no settlement, he offered to remove the added term. Lafarge stated that the written agreement reflected the oral agreement. When the Teamsters indicated it did not, the term to which the Teamsters said they had not agreed, was removed.
It seemed to the Board that the parties had engaged in good faith negotiations to reach a settlement, that an oral agreement had been reached and that the agreement broke down. However, it also was clear to the Board that Lafarge was prepared then and is prepared now to accept a resolution of Board File 1584-99-U on the terms which the Teamsters had set.
Accordingly, the Board issued the following oral decision at the hearing,
The trade union has taken the position that the alleged written Memorandum of Settlement dated April 19, 2000 contains the terms of the oral agreement that the parties had reached but for the last sentence of paragraph four of that Settlement. The employer has taken the position that the alleged written Memorandum of Settlement dated April 19, 2000 contains all of the terms of the oral agreement that the parties had reached including the last sentence of paragraph four of that Settlement. The employer has indicated that the sentence is not an important term to the agreement and that it would settle this matter without that sentence. The employer made that clear on April 19, 2000 and again here today.
The Board is going to adjourn this hearing to a date that will be determined by the Registrar in consultation with the parties so that we can hear legal argument on this issue.
We are going to assume the following facts. The parties had an oral agreement that did not include the last sentence of paragraph four. The counsel for the employer drafted the settlement and set out that term. In the face of that, the Union decided not to sign the deal and said all discussions were off.
Based on those facts, we ask the following question – does the fact that a party inaccurately sets out the terms of an earlier oral agreement and the inaccuracy was subsequently removed by the party mean that the other party can resile from its original oral agreement either before or after the inaccuracy has been removed?
If the Board determines in these circumstances that there was a settlement on the assumed set of facts, Board file 1584-99-U will be settled. If there is no settlement on the assumed set of facts then the employer and the union may lead evidence as to what they say actually occurred.
It is the Board’s view that in asking this question on the assumed set of facts we are adjudicating whether this matter was settled based on the Teamsters best set of facts. The Teamsters changed their position during the hearing and stated that there was no agreement reached because counsel for Lafarge included a term that was not part of the agreement. However, if, as we have assumed, that term had not been present, the Teamsters took the position that the written agreement reflected the oral agreement that had been reached and presumably, the agreement would have been signed and this matter resolved. Therefore, if there is a resolution on the assumed set of facts, we can state that the matter is settled.
This Panel remains seized.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board