Daniel James Zettel v. James Crowe
1690-98-ES Daniel James Zettel, a director of Zettel Metalcraft Ltd., Applicant v. James Crowe, Tony D’Agrosa; Greg Sadler; Nick Kryiakoulias; Somphet Onekeo; Stephani Vanheeswyk, Shelley Acheson-Tugeron, Anne Arnold, Peter Curtis, David Langford; Vito Lozer, National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada); CAW, Local 396 and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 41005629
1906-98-ES National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 396 on behalf of the employees named in Schedule “B”, Tabs 1, 2 and 3, Applicants, v. Zettel Metalcraft Ltd., Zettel Manufacturing Limited, 506165 Ontario Limited cob Trillium Metal Stamping, and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 30006225
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 9, 2001
1By decision dated April 23, 2001, the Board set out the details of a proposed settlement that would, in the absence of objections by any non-union employee party, finally resolve both of these matters under the Employment Standards Act R.S.O. 1990, c. E-14, as amended (“the Act”). The decision invited objections to the proposed settlement by any non-union employee, on or before May 7, 2001.
2The Board is in receipt of what purports to be an application for reconsideration by David Langford, Greg Sadler and Anne Marie Keen (Currie), filed with the Board on May 4, 2001. It does not appear that the application was delivered to any other party in these matters, according to the Certificate of Delivery. Mr. Langford and Mr. Sadler are named responding parties in Board File No. 1690-98-ES, which is a Director’s appeal under the Act against an order to pay. The application for reconsideration states simply that: “We are requesting review of settlement to non-union employees, to be adjusted to 100% of monies owing, not 22%!”.
3It would appear that the request for reconsideration is, in fact, an objection to the proposed settlement of these matters. It would further appear that the objection effectively nullifies the proposed settlement in its entirety, and at least insofar as it purports to resolve all issues in Board File No. 1690-98-ES. However, before making any final determination of that issue, any party may make submissions concerning the effect of the objection on the proposed settlement. Those submissions are to be filed and delivered on or before May 16, 2001. Upon receipt of any submissions, the Board will issue a further decision. In the absence of any submissions, the Board shall direct the Registrar to re-schedule the hearing in Board File No. 1690-98-ES.
4I am seized to deal with the submissions herein directed. I remain seized to deal with any enforcement issues with respect to Board File No. 1906-98-ES.
"Patrick Kelly"
for the Board