Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1703 v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Services Limited
4304-96-U Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1703, Applicant v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Services Limited, c.o.b. as Airline Limousine and Peter Zoldhelyi and Smith & Zoldhelyi, Barrister and Solicitors, Responding Parties.
3714-97-U Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1703, Applicant v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Services Limited, c.o.b. as Airline Limousine, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 23, 2001
Decision
1By letter dated May 24, 2001, the employer has asked that the Board issue a decision in these matters. In support of its request the employer has filed a Memorandum of Agreement executed by the employer, by Jacques Ohannessian and by Sam Dagher. The agreement contemplates payments to Messrs. Ohannessian and Dagher as damages arising out of the Board’s findings in this matter. The union is not a party to this agreement. The employer asks that the Board issue a decision incorporating the provisions of the agreement.
2The letter making the request appeared to have been copied to union counsel. However, as no response was received from the union, the Board, by decision dated June 8, 2001, sought the union’s submissions.
3By letter dated June 27, 2001 those submissions were filed with the Board.
4Union counsel asserts that neither she nor either of the two relevant union officials had received copies of the Board’s decision from the Board.
5It appears that the copy of that decision forwarded to union counsel was forwarded to an outdated address. However, that correspondence was not returned to the Board and neither (apparently) was it forwarded by the recipient to union counsel.
6A copy of the Board’s decision was forwarded to Mr. Dagher at the address listed on the original applications. It has not been returned to the Board.
7No copy was forwarded to Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham does not appear on the list of persons to receive copies of Board correspondence. That is because neither Mr. Graham nor his address appear to have been listed on either of these applications as filed by the union. Should union counsel wish to alter that she may write to the Board and provide Mr. Graham’s coordinates.
8The union opposes the employer’s request.
9In response, the employer asserts that the union, having been decertified, has no right to make any representations in respect of the relief to be accorded to two employees it formerly but no longer represents.
10The Board frankly finds these submissions perplexing. Neither Mr. Ohannessian nor Mr. Dagher are parties to these applications. Thus, although their signatures are to be found in the settlement document, the employer’s request effectively amounts to a request that the Board issue a decision incorporating a settlement signed by only one party to the application.
11The Board is not keen to do so.
12In our previous decision in this matter, the Board found that the employer had violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and remained seized with respect to issues of remedy.
13The Board frequently issues consent awards on the agreement of the parties. There is no such agreement in this case.
14Of course, should either of the parties wish to bring matters related to remedy to a hearing, they are free to do so.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board