E. D. Ferreira

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

The intervener trade union, which already represented bricklayers' assistants employed by one of the related respondent employers, challenged the applicant's proposed bargaining unit description, arguing it improperly carved out a portion of the applicant's designated trade contrary to the province-wide bargaining scheme.

The Board held that the intervener had status to intervene.

The Board further held that it had jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to describe a bargaining unit that excludes a portion of a designated trade where those employees are already represented by another trade union, and that it was appropriate to do so in this case to preserve existing bargaining rights and avoid disenfranchising unrepresented employees.

The Labourers, Local 506 and the Bricklayers, Local 1 both brought applications under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking declarations that several corporate entities constituted a common employer.

The Board found that the preconditions for a section 1(4) declaration were met for seven of the respondents.

However, the Board dismissed the Bricklayers' application due to unreasonable delay, as the union knew or ought to have known of the related employers for four years without asserting its bargaining rights.

The Board granted the Labourers' application, declaring the seven entities a common employer with respect to the Labourers, to prevent undue fragmentation and create a viable bargaining unit.