0236-01-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721, Applicant v. Comstock Canada Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 11, 2001
This is a request for reconsideration filed June 6, 2001 of a decision of the Board (differently constituted) dated May 8, 2001.
The Board’s decision of May 8, 2001 was a default decision in respect of the termination of two employees of the responding party. The applicant (“the union”) filed a referral of a grievance to arbitration on April 20, 2001 and requested that the Board issue a default decision in the event that the employer failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate. No such notice was received and so the Board issued its May 8, 2001 decision which granted the relief requested by the applicant. The issue of damages to the terminated employees was left over to be determined at a hearing.
In its request for reconsideration, the responding party asserts that the union agreed to adjourn the grievance without requiring the responding party to file its Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate. The responding party further asserts that the union agreed to advise the Board of same. According to the employer, the parties then agreed to a resolution of this matter. The referral was adjourned on May 14, 2001 on agreement of the parties. The Board then received a letter from counsel for the union dated May 29, 2001 requesting that the matter be re‑listed for hearing to resolve the issue of damages. The matter is scheduled to be heard on June 15, 2001. The responding party also requests an adjournment of the hearing to await a determination on the request for reconsideration.
There is no dispute that the responding party received the referral and chose not to respond to it. The responding party assumed the risks of not advising the Board of its interest in participating in this matter. As stated in paragraph 7 of the May 8, 2001 decision:
- The only thing a responding party must do to avoid default proceedings is to complete the Form A-87 supplied by the applicant and deliver it to the Board and the applicant within five days of the date of the Board’s Confirmation of Filing (Form B-67). Form A-87 requires little more than the responding party’s name and address and an assertion that the responding party wishes to defend against the grievance referral. The substance of that defence is contained in the response which is not due until 9:30 a.m. on the day set for hearing.
However, the responding party contends that the union made certain representations upon which the responding party relied. The union shall have until 5 p.m. on June 13, 2001 to respond to those submissions. Upon receipt of those representations the Board will consider how next to proceed.
The request for adjournment is denied at this time.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board