Ron Carlton

The applicant union filed applications under sections 1(4), 96, and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union used its pension fund to set up contractors to undercut bids and secure scaffolding work for its members.

The responding parties brought a motion to dismiss the section 96 application and the section 1(4) application as it related to certain contractors.

The Board struck the contractors and the responding union from the section 1(4) application, finding no facts pleaded to support a related employer declaration based merely on a commercial subcontracting relationship.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the section 96 application, holding that the allegations raised novel legal issues and policy considerations regarding union pension fund investments that should not be dismissed without a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the responding employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign labourers to tend carpenters on scaffolding jobs.

The Board found that the employer had failed to assign at least one labourer to all scaffolding jobs, contrary to a previous jurisdictional dispute decision, and thus breached the collective agreement.

However, the Board declined to award damages, finding that the employer had not acted arbitrarily and that the correct work assignment only became clear after the previous decision was issued.

The Labourers' union brought a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging PCL/McCarthy's assignment of construction work on the Canadian portion of the Blue Water Bridge to the Carpenters' union.

The Carpenters raised a preliminary objection that the project fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found it had constitutional jurisdiction, as the construction of the bridge was not integral to its future federal operation.

On the merits, the Board declined to disturb the work assignment, finding that the Carpenters had a valid collective agreement with the employer, whereas the Labourers did not, which outweighed area practice evidence favouring the Labourers.