Greater Essex County District School Board v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 494
3398-00-R Greater Essex County District School Board, Applicant v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 494, Responding Party v. Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor.
3426-00-R Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, Applicant v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 494, Responding Party v. The Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 20, 2001
1These two files are applications for termination of bargaining rights under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995 ch. 1 ("the Act"). The hearing date for both is May 15, 2001, although not necessarily before the same panel of the Board.
2The Board is in receipt of correspondence, starting on March 14, 2001, in Board File No. 3398-00-R. It is not in receipt of any such correspondence on Board File No. 3426-00-R, as noted in a decision in that file dated April 9, 2001.
3With respect to the production issues in Board File No. 3398-00-R, it is difficult to determine the parameters of what is “arguably relevant”, the test for such an order. The definition of “non-construction employer” in section 126 was amended on December 30, 2000 and there is accordingly little determination by this Board of the meaning to be given to that definition. At this point, the Board is inclined to be cautious about excluding evidence without clear definitions of the limits of relevance.
4The relevant time period begins at January 1, 1998. If the responding party has an issue with respect to the predecessors to the applicant, it is not clear from the pleadings. Since the definition of “non-construction employer” is a status issue, like any status it can change over time. That is, even if the predecessors did not meet the definition of “non-construction employer” (a definition that did not exist at that time) that does not, in and of itself, prove anything about the activities of this applicant. Accordingly, the Board will not require the production of any material pre-dating January 1, 1998 at this time.
5The applicant is directed to produce the following:
To the extent that the information is not reflected in the Technical papers produced (none of which have been filed with or referred to the Board) all general documents approved by the applicant for the construction of any new structure, or any new addition to an existing structure, or any renovation of an existing structure. Further, the applicant is directed to produce any general contract or construction management contract or individual contract for construction entered into pursuant to that approval.
Any documents reflecting annual repair work performed on existing facilities (but not each individual piece of repair work).
All documents, be they internal budgets, or documents with respect to funds received from Municipal or Provincial bodies (the applicant says it has received no monies from the federal government) not already disclosed in the Technical Papers.
All leases or rentals or other agreements between the applicant and any third party with respect to the use of the applicant’s facilities. (The fact that one does not anticipate that this will be of any significance is not a reason for refusing to produce documents which are clearly relevant.)
Any document reflecting any other monies received from third parties not reflected in the above documents.
6If there remain issues about the production of further documents, they can be addressed on May 15, 2001. It is obviously in the interests of the applicant to make as complete a disclosure of documents as possible in advance so that the litigation of the case can proceed expeditiously.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board