0172-01-M International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 586, Applicant v. K2 Contracting Inc., Kantec Corp. Inc., Kantec Builders Inc., Cranham Holdings Limited, Boldt Electrical Co. 1991 Ltd., James Davies, Carling Electric Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 27, 2001
The Board issued a brief decision in this matter dated July 10, 2001 dismissing an application made by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 586 (the “union”) under section 115.1 of the Act. The decision provided as follows:
This is an application under section 115.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) which reads as follows:
115.1 (1) This section applies if the Board has commenced a hearing in a proceeding, six months or more have passed since the last day of hearing and a decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling of the Board has not been made.
As will be seen, section 115.1 gives the Chair of the Board a discretion to terminate a proceeding and “start over again”, where a panel of the Board has not issued a decision within 6 months of the last day of hearing.
This application under section 115.1 pertains to proceeding that involved three related applications, filed under sections 1(4), 69, 96 and 133 of the Act respectively (Board Files 0007‑96‑R, 0006‑96‑U and 0008-96-G). The hearing in that proceeding consumed a number of days, and at the time that the request under section 115.1 was made, a decision was indeed outstanding.
However, on May 1, 2001, the panel seized with these matters issued a decision, with reasons, dismissing the applications – a decision which is, of course, “final and binding” under section 114 and 116 of the Act.
In the circumstances, I see no reason to exercise the discretion given to the Chair under section 115.1.
This application is therefore dismissed. The hearing set for August 14, 2001 is hereby cancelled.
A timely request for reconsideration of that decision was received by the Board on July 19, 2001. The union asserts that it had no opportunity to make representations to the Board on the merits of its application or “on the effect a subsequently rendered decision should have on the determination” of the application. The union further submits that it has had no opportunity to “raise important policy considerations” or to “adduce evidence”. And the union points out that it received a letter from the Board’s Deputy Registrar advising that “no submissions were required before the hearing”.
In view of the above, the union is directed to file complete representations in support of its application under section 115.1 of the Act. It should address the matters in paragraphs 3(iii), 3(iv) and 3(v) of its Request for Reconsideration as well as any other matter it regards as appropriate. In addition, the union is directed to set out all of the material facts and all of the evidence upon which it relies. The union’s representation should be filed with the Board and delivered to the other parties by August 10, 2001.
“R. O. MacDowell ”
for the Board