1259-01-R Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Applicant v. Fibrecast Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 31, 2001
1The applicant has asked the Board to reconsider its earlier decision of today in this application. It asserts that it was not served with the response, and that therefore the response is untimely. The certificate of delivery indicates that the response was delivered by facsimile transmission on Monday July 30, 2001 at 4:55 p.m. This was filed with the Board by facsimile transmission on the same day at 5:01 p.m. However, the certificate of delivery does not say on whom the response was served.
2If it was not served on the applicant, then the notice under section 8.1 was not given in a timely fashion and that alone would not cause the Board to seal the ballot box. In other respects, however, the list supplied by the responding party and the other positions set out in the response are, regardless of their merit, issues before the Board. The responding party is directed to advise the Board of whether it served the applicant with a copy of the response on the applicant. If it asserts that it did, its letter should attach a copy of the fax transmission report. The responding party is directed to respond by 3:00 p.m. on August 1, 2001.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board