Court File and Parties
1916-00-U Julio and Maria Sosa, Applicants v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183, Responding Party v. Hurley Corporation, Intervenor.
1994-00-U Rosa Quintanilla and Carlos Guzman, Applicants v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183, Responding Party v. Hurley Corporation, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 1, 2001
Decision
1In a decision dated March 19, 2001 the present applications were, subject to one minor proviso, dismissed.
2The union was directed to file with the Board and to provide to the (relevant) applicants documentary evidence to establish that an amended Record of Employment was issued to Ms. Sosa and that vacation pay was paid by the employer to Ms. Sosa and to Mr. Sosa for the year 1999.
3The union has now complied with that direction and has filed an amended Record of Employment in relation to Ms. Sosa as well as a copy of the employer’s internal payroll form indicating Ms. Sosa was paid vacation pay in the amount of $692.51 by cheque dated May 11, 2000. No copy of the cheque was provided nor any proof that the cheque has been cashed.
4In respect of Mr. Sosa, the union has filed a cheque dated April 2, 2001 in the amount of $320.70. It is perhaps not surprising that no proof that the cheque has been honoured was provided – given its recent vintage. The union did, however, provide an explanation as to why the employer had not issued the cheque earlier.
5I am satisfied that the union has thereby complied with my previous direction.
6In subsequent correspondence, however, the applicants deny ever having previously received any of the documents now filed. In respect of the Record of Employment, I am satisfied that deficiency (if it ever existed) is now cured.
7With respect to the vacation pay payments, the applicants continue to deny ever having received these payments. And while the materials now filed by the union suggest that these payments have been made, they are not conclusive (particularly in face of the applicant’s continuing denials).
8In order to avoid any need to otherwise reopen the consultation in this matter, the trade union is directed to advise the Board whether it prefers to provide documentary evidence that the cheques in question were in fact cashed by the applicants or, alternatively, and in the event those cheques have not been cashed by the applicants, whether it wishes to arrange to have the employer cancel payment on those cheques and to issue replacement cheques to the union which it, in turn, can make available to the applicants.
9The union is directed to complete one or the other of the above options within 30 days of this decision failing which it may be necessary to reconvene the consultation.
10I note and repeat, however, that it was only in respect of the production of the Record of Employment and vacation pay that these proceedings remained alive.
11In their recent submissions, the applicants have taken the opportunity to make submissions on a host of other issues. To the extent they are properly part of these applications, these either were or could have or should have been dealt with at the consultation which has already been held in this matter. I am therefore not prepared to consider or reconsider them at this stage.
12Again, subject only to the specific areas of concern dealt with earlier in this decision, I see no reason to reconsider my decision to dismiss these applications.
13Subject to the foregoing, these applications have been and continue to be dismissed.
"Bram Herlich"
for the Board