2017-01-U United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 175, Applicant v. Cancoil Thermal Corporation, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 7, 2001
This is an application filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging violations of sections 70 and 72 of the Act.
The allegations concern the conduct of the responding party’s (“the employer’s”) General Manager, Chander Datta, at arbitration hearings. It is submitted that the conduct interferes with the representational rights of the applicant (the “union”) and is intimidating and threatening to employees.
Counsel for the employer requests particulars from the union. There is also a request from the employer for an extension of time for the filing of a response. The union objects to both requests. It contends that there are sufficient particulars for a response and that a delay would be unwarranted.
In paragraph 2 of Schedule “B” to the application, the union alleges that Mr. Datta’s behaviour over the 22 year period since the union has been representing employees at this workplace has been intimidating and threatening. The union also alleges that Mr. Datta refuses to “atone to the jurisdiction of various Arbitrators”.
In paragraph 3 of Schedule “B” to the application, the union refers to arbitrations that were convened and describes its allegations in respect of these matters in paragraphs 4-22. Those arbitrations occurred in 2001.
The employer contends that it is unclear as to from the allegations in respect of the 2001 arbitrations whether the union is relying on events occurring between 1979 and 2000.
It appears to the Board that the union has provided its particulars in the form contained in its items (A) to (D) in its Schedule “B”. These relate to matters that occurred in the year 2000. The union is directed to advise counsel for the employer within 7 days of the date of this decision whether these are the only particulars upon which it relies or, if not, to provide particulars as to what else it proposes to rely on. It should clarify whether it is relying on the allegations concerning events between 1979 and 2000.
In paragraph 23 of Schedule “B” of the application the union makes allegations about Mr. Datta’s general behaviour at arbitration hearings and then proceeds to give examples of same. The employer requests particulars in support of this allegation.
The union is directed to advise counsel for the employer within 7 days of the date of this decision whether there are additional particulars upon which it relies in support of its allegations in paragraph 23 and if so what they are.
The employer is directed to files its response to the application within 7 days of being provided with the information from the union as contemplated in this decision.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board