S. Weslak

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union personnel to prepare interference drawings.

The union argued that interference drawings fell within the agreement's coverage of 'shop and field sketches' or, alternatively, its basket clause for 'all other work included in the jurisdictional claims' of the union.

The Board found a latent ambiguity in the agreement and admitted extrinsic evidence of past practice and negotiating history.

The Board concluded that the parties had never agreed to include interference drawings in the 'shop and field sketches' clause, and that the basket clause only covered work similar in nature to the specifically enumerated work.

The grievance was dismissed.

During a hearing into a work assignment dispute between the Millwrights and Ironworkers regarding the installation of a monorail conveyor system, a preliminary issue arose concerning the scope of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board had previously limited past practice evidence to the installation of monorail and package conveyor systems.

When the Ironworkers sought to adduce evidence regarding work on a bridge crane to demonstrate economy and efficiency, the Millwrights objected.

The Board upheld the objection, ruling that evidence of economy and efficiency from other employers must relate specifically to the two types of conveyor systems in dispute to be relevant and admissible.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents in the construction industry.

The respondents and the intervener argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should be the existing broader unit of all employees engaged in concrete forming construction, and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft.

The Board held that, consistent with its general practice in the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a craft trade union is entitled to carve out its craft from an existing broader bargaining unit.

The Board found no compelling reason to depart from this practice and determined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly.

During a hearing, the employer sought to introduce a secretly tape-recorded telephone conversation between its vice-president and a union steward.

The union objected on the grounds that the steward was not an officer or agent of the union, and thus the conversation did not fall under the admissions against interest exception to the hearsay rule.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the steward was not acting within the scope of his stewardship or authorized to make admissions on behalf of the union.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of business and that the two respondent companies constituted a single employer.

The section 63 application was withdrawn.

The respondents conceded common control and direction.

The Board found that although the second company engaged in a broader scope of work than the first, both performed concrete construction work utilizing similar employee skills.

The Board concluded the entities engaged in associated or related activities and exercised its discretion to declare them one employer, binding the second company to the union's collective agreement.