2170-01-R Denis Farley, on his own behalf and on behalf of a group of employees of BE Mechanical, Applicant v. Local Union 71 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Responding Party v. BE Mechanical (A Division of 802798 Ontario Inc.), Intervenor.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 13, 2001
This is an application for termination of bargaining rights in the construction industry pursuant to section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 as amended (the “Act”).
Counsel for the responding party, Local Union 71 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, (“U.A. Local 71”) submits this matter should be terminated pursuant to section 63(16) of the Act.
Counsel for the applicant, Denis Farley, asserts that the pleadings regarding the allegations under section 63(16) are insufficient and do not comply with the Board’s Rules and cites Elirpa Construction Materials Limited, [1996] OLRB Rep. Jan. 4. Counsel also refers to a decision dated November 16, 2001 (unreported) in Board File No. 0370-01-R, J.C. Sulphur Construction Ltd.
Having reviewed the post-vote submissions filed by the parties and the cases referred to by counsel for the applicant, the Board finds that there are sufficient particulars filed by the responding party for the matter to proceed to hearing.
The Board notes the correspondence from counsel for U.A. Local 71 dated November 12, 2001 makes reference to a letter with respect to “….employees could negotiate better wages and better benefits with their employer directly.” Counsel indicates that a copy of that particular letter was circulated. No such letter was attached to the letter to the Registrar and the fax cover sheet would suggest that this document was not attached.
Counsel for the responding party is directed to forward a copy of this letter (referred to in paragraph 2 of page 2 of the November 12, 2001 correspondence) to the Board and ensure that a copy was in fact sent to the other parties.
The Registrar is directed to schedule this matter for hearing.
This panel is not seized.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board