Ontario Labour Relations Board
Jeff Jessup, Applicant v. Ontario Pipe Trades Council and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46, Responding Parties v. Jack Bird Plumbing & Heating Ltd., Intervenor.
Before: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board: May 18, 2001
Decision
1These are two applications for declarations terminating bargaining rights. The Board has scheduled a hearing for the application in Board File No. 3206-00-R to deal with the outstanding issues between the parties concerning the challenges raised with respect to the voter eligibility of certain persons who case ballots in the representation vote. The Board has also scheduled an Officer’s meeting to deal with the application in Board File No. 3886-00-R.
2Counsel for the applicant proposes that the Board determine, before the scheduled hearing in Board File No. 3206-00-R, whether it will be necessary to hear any viva voce evidence after a review of the employer’s records and if such evidence is necessary, whether evidence of one person will be treated as being representative of the evidence of all the persons challenged. Counsel requests a direction from the Board prior to the hearing so that the other employees will not be required to attend the hearing. Counsel for the applicant also requests that the Officer’s meeting in Board File No. 3886-00-R be adjourned.
3It appears that there is a good deal of overlap between these two applications. Although counsel for the responding party initially opposed the adjournment of the Officer’s meeting, there is agreement now to adjourn that meeting. The Officer’s meeting in Board File No. 3886-00-R is hereby adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Manager of Field Services.
4The Board is not prepared, prior to the scheduled hearing, to determine how the panel assigned to hear the application in Board File No. 3206-00-R will conduct this case. If there is any merit to the proposal made by counsel for the applicant, he can raise his proposal before the Board at the hearing of this matter. Therefore, despite the inconvenience of having more than just the one employee who the applicant proposed could provide the representative evidence attend at the hearing, the Board dismisses the applicant’s request for a pre-hearing direction in Board File No. 3206-00-R without prejudice to the applicant renewing his request at the hearing of this matter.
5This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
"Harry Freedman"
for the Board