4193-98-G United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lake Ontario District Council, Applicant v. Lardale Construction, Lardale Construction Inc. and Mel-Ron Construction Limited, Responding Parties.
4196-98-R United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lake Ontario District Council, Applicant v. Lardale Construction, Lardale Construction Inc., Mel-Ron Construction Limited, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and
G. McMenemy.
APPEARANCES: Norm Jesin, David Watson, Joel Neville and Frank Godfrey for the applicant; David Cowling, Larry Kernohan and Dale Kernohan for Lardale Construction and Lardale Construction Inc.; Liz Keenan, Deborah Van Schyndel, Budd Kernohan and Nicole Brown for Mel-Ron Construction Limited.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 19, 2001
1This is an application pursuant to the provisions of section 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act').
2On the date of the last hearing of this matter, June 12, 2001, the parties concluded Minutes of Settlement which read:
Board File Nos. 4193-98-G
4196-98-R
MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT
BETWEEN:
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Lake Ontario District Council
(the “Applicant”)
- and -
Lardale Construction, Lardale Construction Inc.,
Mel-Ron Construction Limited
(the “Responding Parties”)
Documents already copied by the Responding Parties will be produced to the Applicant immediately, except for copies not at the Board on today’s dates which will be provided on the Inspection date.
The Applicant will attend at the Responding Party, Mel-Ron Construction Limited, on Thursday, June 14, 2001 for the purpose of inspecting documents. The Applicant will attend at the Responding Party, Lardale Construction Inc.’s premises on Thursday, June 21, 2001. If further inspection is required Counsel for the Applicant will arrange with the appropriate Counsel for the Responding Party to facilitate and co-ordinate further inspection. If copies of documents are required they will be provided to the Applicant at a cost of $0.15 per copy.
If there are any issues arising out of the inspection of documents these issues will be raised first among Counsel, but if they cannot be dealt with among Counsel, they will be raised with the Board no later than July 13, 2001. If there are issues raised the party(s) opposite must provide its position on these issues by July 20, 2001. Any response must be provided by July 25, 2001.
The Applicant will pay to each of the Responding Parties on or before August 1, 2001 the sum of $1,000.00 with respect to copies already made, unless the Application is withdrawn prior to that date.
Dated this 12^th^ day of June, 2001 in the City of Toronto.
(“L. Kernohan”) (“Joel L. Neville”)
Lardale Applicant
Larry Kernohan
(“Bud Kernohan”)
Mel-Ron
Bud Kernohan
3That settlement resolved a disagreement between the parties concerning the cost incurred by the responding parties for photocopying numerous documents which they were required to produce. The Board members hearing this matter assisted the parties in reaching the agreement which is recorded in the Minutes of Settlement.
4The applicant defaulted in its payment of the amounts referred to in paragraph 4 of the Minutes of Settlement in that payment was made on about September 10, 2001, and not by August 1, 2001 as provided in that paragraph.
5A dispute has arisen between the parties as to consequence of the breach of paragraph 4 of the Minutes of Settlement. The responding parties seek the dismissal of the application. The applicant opposes that request.
6The dispute has caused the Board Members to be concerned about the ability of Construction Board Members to assist parties to resolve their problems without litigation. Once the process has been questioned by a party, it causes the Board Members to be cautious about the whole process of mediation. This is not a direction the Board wants to travel, nor a route the construction industry needs.
7In light of the involvement of the Board Members in the process of the negotiations which led to the conclusion of the Minutes of Settlement and the dispute, this panel will recuse itself from any further consideration of the application. The application will be heard by a different panel of the Board.
8The hearings on September 12, 2001 and September 17, 2001 are adjourned. The matter will be referred to the Registrar to assign a different panel to hear the matter afresh. The new panel will deal with the issue of the consequences of the breach by the applicant of paragraph 4 of the Minutes of Settlement.
9At the commencement of the hearing on September 11, 2001 the Labourers’ International Union, Local 183 sought admission to the proceedings as an intervenor. It intends to bring a section 69 / 1(4) application in broadly similar terms to that brought by the applicant and it suggests the two proceedings should be heard together. The request to intervene and the question of the two matters being heard together (assuming the Labourers file their own section 69 / 1(4) application) can be dealt with by the panel assigned to hear this matter.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board