1241-01-U Dan Vernal et al, Applicants v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and its Locals 290 and 1521, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 28, 2001
[1]. The Board is in receipt of correspondence dated September 25, 2001 from counsel for the responding parties and September 26, 2001 from counsel for the applicants.
[2]. Counsel are reminded of their obligation to provide copies of correspondence to the Board, to the other parties to the application and, if they have not already done so with respect to the letters recently filed, they are directed to do so forthwith.
[3]. The applicants seek to amend the name of the responding party on its application by adding the words “and its” before the words “Local 290 and 1521” thereby effectively or at least arguably adding the parent National Union as a responding party to the application.
[4]. The applicant have indicated that it has advised the National Union of this request by virtue of copying same to Michael Lambert, National Representative of the union.
[5]. Counsel for the responding party locals suggests that the appropriate person for such purposes is Cecil Makowski, Vice-President, Ontario (a full address is set out in the September 25, 2001 letter).
[6]. The applicants are hereby directed to forthwith deliver a copy of its application, its subsequent request, and any other materials it has previously filed in this matter and a copy of this decision to Mr. Makowski.
[7]. It is not the practice of this Board to secure the permission or to otherwise seek the submissions of potential responding parties. Applicants are permitted to file applications against the responding parties they choose. In that context, we see no reason to deny the requested amendment to the application and it is hereby granted.
[8]. Having done so, however, this should not be taken as any indication that the Board views the applicant’s selection of responding parties to be appropriate. The legal obligation alleged to have been violated depends upon the existence of representation rights. Such rights are typically exclusive rights. In that context the selection of what are arguably three distinct responding parties may be curious. Indeed, we note that the responding parties have already asserted, for example, that none of the applicants were at any relevant time ever represented by Local 1521. The National Union may have more to say about the propriety of its “joinder” as a responding party in these proceedings when it files its response.
[9]. We note as well that the responding party locals have asserted that this application ought to be dismissed as untimely.
[10]. The Board notes that the most recent event adverted to in the application (which was filed on July 25, 2001) dates to June 7, 1999.
[11]. The applicants are hereby directed to respond to the motion that the application be dismissed as untimely. The applicants will wish to provide any relevant particulars which may serve to explain why this application was filed more than two years after the events complained of occurred or came to light.
[12]. Those submissions are to be filed with the Board and delivered to the parties no later than October 22, 2001.
[13]. The Board may review them prior to the scheduled consultation.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board