Denis Flynn

Four related jurisdictional disputes were filed regarding the assignment of work involving the uncrating, unpacking, and disposal of packaging material for a direct strip mill.

The employer had assigned the work to various trades, and the Labourers grieved the assignment.

The Board held that the uncrating of equipment and the dismantling or disposal of packaging material during the uncrating process was properly assigned to the trades.

However, once the equipment was entirely uncrated, the disposal and clean-up of the remaining packaging material was the work of the Labourers.

The Labourers' International Union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment by Nicholls Radtke Limited regarding the stripping of formwork at a co-generation project.

The employer had assigned the work to the Labourers, which the Carpenters grieved.

The Board determined that, based on the employer's past practice, the original written assignment, and area practice, the assignment to the Labourers was incorrect.

The Board ruled that the Carpenters have jurisdiction over the releasing, removal, and dismantling of formwork where the materials are intended to be re-used for forming purposes.

The applicant trade union referred several grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by assigning certain work to composite crews of millwrights and ironworkers.

The intervener ironworkers' union argued that the grievances were essentially jurisdictional disputes and should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to hear the section 124 referrals but, in accordance with its usual practice, decided to first entertain the jurisdictional dispute complaint filed under section 91 before proceeding with the grievances.

The Board heard representations on whether to determine if disputed work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry prior to hearing the merits of a jurisdictional dispute and related grievances.

The applicant union argued the sector issue should be decided first, while the respondents and complainant union argued it should be deferred to the panel hearing the jurisdictional dispute.

The Board directed that the sector issue be determined prior to considering any other issues, as it would impact the relevance of criteria used to resolve the jurisdictional dispute.