R. Redford

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of bricklayers and stonemasons employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued that an existing collective agreement with the intervener union covered these employees and acted as a bar to the application, seeking to introduce extrinsic evidence of negotiations to prove this intent.

The Board held that the collective agreement, which defined employees as those on the active payroll and lacked construction industry provisions, clearly did not cover construction bricklayers.

Finding no patent or latent ambiguity in the agreement, the Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence.

The employer sought reconsideration of an earlier Board decision which found that its lock-out of employees constituted a breach of section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union sought compensation for lost wages and benefits, damages for its own expenses, and consent to prosecute the employer.

The Board affirmed its earlier decision, holding that the employer could not resort to a lock-out to avoid a compulsory second round of arbitration to which it had previously agreed.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the locked-out employees for all wages and benefits lost.

However, the Board denied the union's request for its own public relations and legal expenses, finding them too remote, and dismissed the application for consent to prosecute, concluding it would not serve any useful purpose.