1904-99-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Applicants v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis and Luigi Scodellaro, Responding Parties v. IUBAC Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 31; Masonry Industry Employers’ Council of Ontario; Terrazzo, Tile and Marble Guild of Ontario Inc., Intervenors.
3003-00-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25; Peter Sartorius; Michael Connolly, Applicants v. Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis, Luigi Scodellaro, Robert Watson and Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Responding Parties v. Masonry Industry Employers Council of Ontario, Intervenor
3331-00-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Applicants v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29 and 31, Responding Parties v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Intervenor.
1220-01-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25; Peter Sartorius; Michael Connolly, Applicants v. Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 21, 2001
1These applications are to be heard together. The latest application, Board File No. 1220-01-U was filed on July 24, 2001. By a decision dated July 25, 2001 the Board asked counsel to file their responses and to deal with a number of issues, including the request of the applicant that the matters be expedited. It granted the responding parties a one week extension to the deadline initially set in the July 24, 2001 decision.
2The Board received letters from counsel for the applicant and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers on August 8, 2001. On August 15, 2001 counsel for the responding parties responded suggesting 10 days, none of which corresponded to the dates suggested by counsel for the other two parties. Given that counsel had the letters from the other two parties in hand when her letter was sent to the Board, the result is unimpressive to say the least. A telephone call from the Registrar’s staff elicited no further information on this subject.
The Board is unable to determine whether there is a genuine problem in finding mutually acceptable dates, or whether the August 15 letter is simply an example of the lack of enthusiasm felt by most responding parties to impending litigation.
3The Board is not prepared to wait until November or later to start to hear even preliminary motions. The Board directs the parties to consult among themselves and to advise the Board of one day on which all parties are prepared to appear before the Board. The purpose of this date will be to entertain all preliminary motions and to make arrangements with respect to the scheduling of the required number of days to complete the case. If the parties have been unable to set a date by Friday August 24, 2001, the Board will set one in September without further notice or consultation with the parties (although Mr. Eady’s request with respect to September 8 to 24 will be respected).
4The Board will not entertain the request that the application in Board File No.
1220-01-U be dismissed for failure to plead a prima facie case. If nothing else, the novelty of the fact situation prevents the Board from saying that the application cannot possibly succeed (see The County of Brant, [2000] OLRB Rep. Nov./Dec. 1106).
5I am seized of these matters.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board