Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Terra Infrastructure Inc.
2047-01-R Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059, Applicant v. Terra Infrastructure Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 17, 2001
[1]. This is an application for certification in the construction industry in which a vote was held and the ballot box was sealed pending the resolution of status disputes.
[2]. The applicant has challenged a number of individuals. The responding party asserts that the union cannot at this point in the proceedings assert new grounds for its challenges. The applicant originally challenged Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the basis of 1(3)(b). Subsequent to the post vote meeting the applicant took what appears to be an alternative position that the challenged individuals were “not at work or performing bargaining unit work” on the application date.
[3]. The applicant is requesting pre-hearing production of corporate records in its letter dated November 6, (faxed on Nov. 6/01) and production of time sheets, supervisor’s logs, payroll records, etc. as set out in a separate November 6 letter which was faxed to the Board on November 27, 2001.
[4]. The responding party has provided a weekly time sheet for all of the persons at work during the relevant time.
[5]. The responding party further agrees in its letter of November 30, 2001 that Manuel DeMelo (Voter No. 4) does exercise some managerial function and is therefore properly excluded from the bargaining unit. (The Board notes that the first paragraph on page 2 of the responding party’s letter dated November 30, 2001 refers to Manuel DeMelo as voter No. 5. That is clearly a typographical error. Voter No. 5 is Tony DeMelo.)
[6]. The applicant’s November 6/27 letter makes reference to the remaining issues and sets out in some detail why No. 2 – Eduardo DeMelo, No.3 – Jose DeMelo, No. 4 – Manuel DeMelo, and No. 5 – Tony DeMelo, are being challenged. It is not clear whether the applicant continues to challenge No. 6 – Ian Howlett.
[7]. With respect to the applicant’s request for production of documents, the Board directs the responding party to bring with them to the hearing the documents requested by the applicant with respect to the corporate documents and the payroll records for the relevant time.
[8]. The panel hearing this matter can deal with the issues raised and determine the extent and scope of the documents to be produced by the responding party to the applicant.
[9]. The applicant is directed to indicate if it is still challenging Ian Howlett and if it is, to provide particulars as to why it challenges Ian Howlett as being managerial.
[10]. The responding party has agreed that No. 4, Manuel DeMelo , is excluded. That leaves Nos. 2, 3 and 5, which are Eduardo, Jose and Tony DeMelo.
[11]. If the applicant wishes to pursue the additional grounds for challenging the individuals identified at the regional certification meeting, it is directed to provide particulars as to why the applicant asserts the challenged individuals were not at work or performing work in the bargaining unit on the application date.
[12]. This matter is referred to the Registrar to schedule for hearing. This panel is not seized.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board