This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.

Loading paragraph markers

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 120 v Armoclan Engineering Ltd., 2016 CanLII 8789 (ON LRB)

Date:
2016-02-19
File number:
2725-15-G
Citation:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 120 v Armoclan Engineering Ltd., 2016 CanLII 8789 (ON LRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gngvc>, retrieved on 2024-03-28

OLRB Case No:  2725-15-G

 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 120, Applicant v Armoclan Engineering Ltd., Responding Party

 

 

BEFORE:  David A. McKee, Vice‑Chair

 

 

APPEARANCES: Ron Lebi, Mike Gratton, Will Perrie appearing for the applicant; Inna Koldorf, Simone Ostrowski, Anita Mollaj and Argi Mollaj appearing for the responding party

 

 

DECISION OF THE BOARD:  February 19, 2016

 

 

1.                  This is a referral of a grievance to arbitration pursuant to section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, Ch. 1 as amended (the "Act"). The matter came on for hearing on February 19, 2016.  This decision deals with the two preliminary motions that were argued at that time. The responding party (“Armoclan”) made a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the referral and the subsequent productions by the Union were so devoid of particulars that Armoclan was unable to respond to the grievance.  The Union made a motion for an order requiring Armoclan to produce certain documents.  The Board rendered the following decisions on these motions orally at the hearing.

 

2.                  The motion to dismiss the application is itself dismissed. The issue in any grievance where there is a question of whether or not the particulars offered are sufficient is whether the responding party (in this case Armoclan) can adequately respond to the grievance.  It is not necessary for the applicant union to demonstrate before the hearing commences that it has, in its hands, all the documents and witnesses that it will ever need at any point in the case.  It is sufficient if the pleadings disclose to the responding party what the factual issues and assertions are that the applicant relies on.

 

3.                  In this case I am satisfied that Armoclan knows exactly what the Union is seeking and the facts on which it relies and what it is that the Union believes happened.  Armoclan will have, and at this point should have, absolutely no difficulty in understanding the case it is required to meet.  If asked in writing, I will provide the specific details that lead me to that conclusion.

 

4.                  The Union seeks an order requiring Armoclan to produce certain documents.  The Union seeks production of the following documents:

 

1.   All Armoclan Engineering Ltd. purchase orders, invoices, construction contracts and or other contractual documents with its client(s) at its projects at 124 Tillson Ave., Tillsonburg and at 773086 Hwy 59, Norwich (the “Projects”) including any and all documents descriptive of Armoclan Engineering Ltd.'s scope of work at the Projects;

 

2.   All permits issued to Armoclan Engineering Ltd. with respect to the Projects;

 

3.   The Notice of Project under the Construction Industry Regulation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for both projects;

 

4.   All records pertaining to electrical work performed at the Projects, including all permits from the Electrical Safety Authority and communications with the Electrical Safety Authority pertaining to the Projects;

 

5.   All payroll records and time records in respect of all employees or contractors performing electrical work at the projects.

 

5.                  This request is reasonable.  All of the documents are at least arguably relevant, which Armoclan concedes is the test for making the order. The Board directs Armoclan to produce all of the documents listed above that are in its possession and control.

 

6.                  If Armoclan does not have any of one or more types of documents set out above, then it need only answer that it has none. That is not a reason not to make an order.  The first paragraph is reasonable.  The Union does not know in what form the agreement between the two owners and Armoclan was created.  It may be one document or it may be many. It is to be expected that the Union will cast a broad net for that reason. Armoclan will know the answer to that question not the union.  All documents containing the scope of work are relevant as it appears this may have changed or purported to have been changed over the relevant period of time. It is appropriate to order that all permits issued by the Electrical Safety Association be produced.  I have been told that there were Electrical and Engineering permits.  In the absence of any knowledge as to the distinction between the two and what information is contained in one or the other, both are arguably relevant.

 

7.                  The Board therefore orders Armoclan to produce all of the documents contained in the list in paragraph 4 above on or before March 4, 2016.  The hearing in this matter will resume on
Thursday, April 7, 2016 at
9:30 a.m. in the "Board Room", 2nd Floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.

 

 

 

 

 

“David A. McKee”

for the Board