Ontario Labour Relations Board
2347-00-R Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Applicant v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., Responding Party v. Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers; International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers; International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 6; International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 7; International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 25, Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 22, 2001
1This is an application for certification brought pursuant to the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch.1 (the "Act"). It was filed on November 8, 2000. It has been through several days of hearing, although some of the issues raised in this application have been resolved in other applications.
2This matter was scheduled for an additional day of hearing on June 19, 2001. About 10 days prior to that date I received a telephone call from Mr. Moran, counsel to the responding party. Owing to personal medical circumstances he was seeking an adjournment of that date. He advised me that he had the consent of Mr. Richmond, acting for the applicant, and simply needed to know my availability in a week he and Mr. Richmond were both able to argue the case. Since I was dealing with experienced counsel, and the matter was one of scheduling only, I did not foresee a difficulty in dealing with the matter in this informal manner and did not have the file brought up to me.
3However, I did not turn my mind to the issue of other parties to the application and whether their consent to any further dates was required. That oversight is as much my personal responsibility as that of counsel, and perhaps highlights the risks of the Board dealing with even minor matters in an informal way.
4On June 19, 2001 I received a call from Mr. Eady, acting on behalf of the intervenor, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, the incumbent union. He had not been consulted with respect to the adjournment and neither he (whose clients’ status was not challenged) nor Mr. Gottheil (whose clients’ status may still be challenged by the applicant) were available on July 20, 2001, the date to which this matter had been adjourned. He advised he had spoken to Mr. Richmond before calling me. As a result of this conversation, I sent a letter by e-mail to all counsel which stated in part:
I received a telephone call from Mr. Eady yesterday indicating that neither he nor Mr. Gottheil had been consulted with respect to a date for a continuation of this matter and that he had a prior hearing on July 20 and Mr. Gottheil was on holidays. In the circumstances it appears that it will be necessary to set another date for the conclusion of this application. I understand from Mr. Eady that none of the remaining dates in July that I have free are available to him or Mr. Gottheil, so I will start with August dates.
As of today, the following dates are free in my calendar:
August 3, 6, 7, 13. 15, 20, 21, 23 24, 27, 28, 29
September 11-14 inclusive, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28
October 24, 25 26, and 29
I haven't asked the registrar to hold any of these dates as I am uncertain how long it will take counsel to consult about the dates. If you narrow it down to 2 or 3 dates quickly, call Becky Albino at 326-7446 to put a hold on them. When you have an agreed upon date, call her and confirm the date with her.
Thank you, and my apologies for the confusion about the dates.
5On June 20, 2001 the Board received a letter from Mr. Richmond (which was placed before me on June 22, 2001) requesting that the Board deal with the remaining issue in the file by way of written submissions. In his view, the only remaining issue is that of the appropriate bargaining unit description.
6I am unwilling to make any decision on this request in the absence of submissions from the other parties. Written submissions may be appropriate. On the other hand, I do not know if the issues I identified as (g) and (h) in the November 15, 2000 decision in this matter, or any other issues I have not identified, are still issues in this proceeding. I am aware from the call from Mr. Eady that he will be away on holidays until July 3, 2001. I did ensure that there was someone in each of the counsel’s offices who could commit to dates. Mr. Moran has volunteered to co-ordinate the dates and speak to the Registrar about them. If he is able to find a date acceptable to all parties, that may allay the applicant’s concerns.
7If no date is agreed on by July 3, 2001, the applicant is directed to file with the Board what it asserts is a proper timetable for written submissions. The order would start with full submissions by one party, with responses by the others, and a final right of reply by the first party. The other parties are directed to respond to Mr. Richmond’s submissions about the scheduling on or before July 6, 2001. Any reply by Mr. Richmond should be filed as soon as possible, preferably by July 9, 2001. If it is filed by that date, I will be able to provide the parties with a decision within 24 hours. To avoid delay internally at the Board, I would ask Mr. Richmond to send me by e-mail a copy of the letter he sends to the Board and all other parties.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board