Ucal Powell

The Carpenters' union and the Labourers' union disputed the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on two bridge projects in Board Area No. 8.

The employer, Ellis-Don Ltd., had assigned the work to the Carpenters.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including employer practice, area practice, employer preference, and economy and efficiency.

The Board found that these factors supported the assignment of the disputed work to the Carpenters, while the remaining factors were neutral.

The Board ruled that the disputed work was properly assigned to the Carpenters.

The applicant, a local union business representative, was removed from office by the international union after losing his good standing due to the late payment of a union fine.

He applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 149(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing he was removed without just cause.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 149(2) does not create independent rights for individual members to challenge internal union discipline, but rather exists only to protect local union autonomy from unwarranted interference by a parent union.

The applicant employers filed a complaint concerning a work assignment dispute under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent Carpenters union requested that the Board defer the proceedings to private arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the Carpenters and the Labourers union.

The Board declined to defer the proceedings, noting that the applicant employers were not bound by the inter-union agreement and that proceeding before the Board would minimize the duplication of proceedings and ensure all interested parties could participate.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration against the respondent municipality, alleging that work covered by their collective agreement was being performed by non-union members.

Two subcontractors, Bemar and Framing Design, sought to intervene in the proceedings and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding the subcontractors had sufficient notice.

The Board also denied intervener status, ruling that the subcontractors' interests were purely commercial and arose from separate contracts with the respondent, rather than from the collective agreement at issue.

The subcontractors subsequently requested reconsideration, which the Board directed them to support with written submissions.