C. Calligan

The Board considered the order of proceedings for multiple applications involving the Carpenters' Union and Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc. The employer sought to have its non-construction employer application heard before the union's single employer/successor employer application.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the non-construction employer application until bargaining rights were established, and ordered that the single employer/successor employer application be heard first.

During an ongoing application by an employer seeking a declaration that it was a 'non-construction employer' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the legislature amended the definition of 'non-construction employer'.

The Board was asked to determine whether the pre-amendment or post-amendment definition applied to the proceeding.

Applying the Interpretation Act and common law principles regarding accruing rights, the Board held that the employer had an accruing right to have its application determined under the law as it existed when the application was filed.

The proceeding was ordered to continue under the pre-amendment legislation.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 filed a jurisdictional dispute claiming that its members should have been assigned to tend carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding for Doug Chalmers Construction Limited at an Esso Refinery Plant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including collective agreements, safety, skill and training, economy and efficiency, and area practice.

The Board found that while some factors favoured the labourers, the factors of area practice (specifically the practice of specialty scaffolding contractors) and economy and efficiency strongly favoured the carpenters.

The Board affirmed the employer's assignment of the work exclusively to the carpenters.

The applicant trade union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement.

The respondent denied being bound by the agreement, arguing it did not hold relevant bargaining rights.

The Board found that the respondent was a member of the Sarnia Construction Association and was therefore bound by the collective agreements entered into by the association, including the provincial collective agreement.

The matter was directed to be relisted for hearing on the remaining issues.