The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent employer argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, asserting that the painting work performed by its employees at a university student residence was maintenance rather than construction.
The Board held that the primary purpose of the painting was decorative, not to sustain or protect the function of the premises, and therefore constituted construction work.
Consequently, the Board found the respondent to be an employer in the construction industry and granted the application for certification.
A dissenting board member would have found the work to be maintenance.
