Ontario Labour Relations Board
0239-01-R Geremiah Geldart, Applicant v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Responding Party v. Underground Service (1983) Ltd., Intervenor.
0241-01-R Brad Martin, Applicant v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Responding Party v. Underground Service (1983) Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 17, 2001
Decision
1These are termination applications under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 ('the Act'). Representation votes have been held in each. In each case three individuals appeared at the vote and cast ballots. The responding union (‘the union’) takes the position that, in both votes, the individuals who cast ballots were not employees on the date of the termination application. The intervening employer (‘the employer’) has provided documentation which suggests that they were.
2The union has made allegations, some not particularized, of employer initiation of the termination applications. It seeks to have the applications dismissed under section 63(16) of the Act. The applicants in the two applications have sought to have the union’s allegations struck out as disclosing no prima facie complaint.
3There is a dispute of fact between the union and the other parties concerning the status of the individuals who cast ballots in the representation votes. Although the material presented by the employer suggests that they were employees on the date of the application in each case, the question of the status of the individuals will need to be determined at a hearing. The union should provide a written response to the allegations contained in the employer’s response of June 15, 2001 in each application. Those responses should be filed by July 31, 2001.
4As regards the union’s allegations pursuant to section 63(16) of the Act, they are, mostly, insufficiently particularized. The allegations contained in Schedule “A” of the union’s response to the applications lacks sufficient detail to found a proper complaint under section 63(16). The union has amplified those allegations in a letter to the Board dated May 7, 2001. But, barring the allegations contained in the last sentence of paragraph 1 thereof (which are not particularized) and that in paragraph 8, and its implications, none of the allegations support the notion that the employer initiated the termination applications. They relate to conduct after the filing of the applications. While that conduct might arguably be a violation of the unfair labour practice provisions of the Act, it does not support the notion that the employer initiated the applications. No unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 has been filed by the union in respect of the employer’s post-application conduct, and it is not clear whether the union intends to do so.
5In short, if the union wishes to pursue its allegations under section 63(16) of the Act, it must provide proper particulars of its allegations, as requested in the employer’s letter of May 30, 2001. If the union wishes to pursue its post-application allegations, it must file a section 96 complaint. The particulars and the section 96 complaint must be filed by July 31, 2001 if the union wishes to pursue its allegations.
6The applicants in each case and the employer may respond to the particulars and any section 96 complaint filed by the union by August 15, 2001.
7Although these applications concern different bargaining units, there are sufficient similarities in the issues, circumstances and allegations that the applications should be heard together.
8The matters are referred to the Registrar. The applications should be set down for hearing together on a date not less than two weeks after August 15, 2001. I am not seized.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board