International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721 v. Comstock Canada Ltd.
File No.: 0236-01-G Applicant: International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721 Responding Party: Comstock Canada Ltd.
Before: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board: June 20, 2001
Decision of the Board
1This is a request for reconsideration filed with the Board on June 6, 2001 of a decision of the Board dated May 8, 2001 (“the decision”). In the decision the Board ordered the reinstatement of two employees, Messrs. Melanson and Newhall who had been terminated by the responding party (“the employer”). The decision was processed on a default basis as the employer did not file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate (Form A-87). The issue of damages was not determined in the decision but held over for hearing which was scheduled for May 16, 2001.
2The employer then filed this request for reconsideration and asked that the decision be revoked. The basis for that request was the employer’s contention that prior to the decision being issued the union had agreed to adjourn the grievance and direct its counsel to advise the Board that the matter would be adjourned without the requirement for the employer to file the Form A-87. The purpose of the adjournment was to await the return of the labour relations representative for the employer who would deal with the matter. However, no such correspondence was received by the Board and the decision issued.
3The employer asserts that following receipt of the decision the representatives of the two parties met. The employer contends that the union confirmed that there had been agreement to adjourn and that the union would not enforce the decision. The merits of the grievance were discussed and a tentative settlement seemed to have been arrived at.
4On the basis of these facts the responding party asserts that it would be unjust for the decision to stand.
5Upon receipt of the request for reconsideration, I requested submissions from the union. It provides a distinctly different set of facts. The union asserts that the employer was advised that the union was relying on its strict rights in this matter and gave no assurances or representations to the contrary.
6I decline to determine this request without evidence on the factual dispute. Therefore, the reconsideration request will be dealt with at the outset of the hearing on June 29, 2001.
7I am not seized.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board