Doefs Ironworks Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths Forgers & Helpers, 1980 CanLII 990

Doefs Ironworks Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths Forgers & Helpers

[1980] OLRB Rep. July 965

0658-80-JD Doefs Ironworks Ltd., Complainant, v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths Forgers & Helpers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths Forgers and Helpers, Local 128, and International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Ironworkers, Local 721, Respondents.

BEFORE: R. A. Furness, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and W. F. Rutherford.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 21, 1980

1In a decision dated June 30, 1980, the Board issued the following interim order pursuant to section 8 1(8) of the Act:

"Doef's Ironworks Ltd. shall continue to assign the work of erecting and bolting together six prefabricated steel storage tanks on the premises of Mobil Chemical Canada Limited at 323 University Avenue, Northwest Industrial Park, Belleville, to members of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 721."

2The respondents International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths Forgers & Helpers ("Boilermakers") and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths Forgers and Helpers, Local 128 ("Boilermakers Local 128") challenged the jurisdiction of the Board to entertain this complaint. The complainant and the respondent International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Iron-workers, Local 721 ("Local 721") adopted the position that the Board had jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In its decision dated June 30, 1980, the Board stated that it would give written reasons for its finding that the Board had jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. These reasons are now set forth.

3The Boilermakers and Boilermakers Local 128 adopted the position that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 8 1(8) or 8 1(9) of the Act because a strike was neither im­minent nor was taking place. As an alternative position the Boilermakers and Boilermakers Local 128 argued that if any strike was imminent or was taking place there was no evidence that such a strike was unlawful.

4The evidence established that the complainant was awarded a contract from Mobil Chemical Canada Limited ("Mobil") for the erection and bolting together of six prefabricated steel storage tanks on Mobil's property at 323 University Avenue, Northwest Industrial Park, Belleville. Mobil has also entered into a contract with a general contractor to build a new plant number two which is two hundred yards down the road from plant number one. The tanks are between two hundred and two hundred and fifty feet from the new plant number two. The complainant's employees and the employees of the sub-contractors of the general contractor use the same entrance to enter Mobil's property. The complainant commenced to erect the tanks on June 13, 1980, and employed five members of Local 721 to erect the tanks. The com­plainant and Local 721 are bound by two collective agreements. One of these collective agree­ments covers construction work and the other collective agreement covers maintenance work. The complainant and Boilermakers and Boilermakers Local 128 are not bound by a collective agreement. The complainant assigned the work of erecting the tanks to members of Local 721 pursuant to the collective agreement which covers construction work and which is binding on the complainant and Local 721.

5On June 13, 1980, the complainant's president received a telephone call from Mr. McManus of the Boilermakers who inquired who was being asked to erect the tanks. Upon being told that the complainant was using ironworkers, Mr. McManus stated that it was boi­lermakers' work and informed the complainant's president that he would see him on the picket line because it ~as boilermakers' work. The complainant continued the erection of the tanks on June 16, 17 and 18 without incident. On June 19, 1980,a picket line was established outside the construction workers' entrance to Mobil's property for part of the working day. One of the pickets identified himself as being "from the Boilermakers". On that same date two represen­tatives of Boilermakers Local 128 visited the complainant's president and re-stated that the erection of the tanks was boilermakers' work and that a picket line would be established. On June 20, 1980, Mobil requested the complainant to cease working on the erection of the tanks until the dispute over the performance of such work was settled. The complainant had not worked on its contract with Mobil from June20 until June 30, the date of the hearing of this complaint. On June 23, 1980, a picket line was again established for the beginning of the work­ing day.

6During the existence of the picket lines the subcontractors' tradesmen refused to cross it and perform the work which had been scheduled for them. The Board finds that the Boilermakers and Boilermakers Local 128 carried out their declared intention of setting up picket lines as a result of the complainant's assignment of the work of erecting the tanks to members of Local 721. The Board finds that a strike was imminent or was taking place by reason of the assignment of work within the meaning of section 81(8) of the Act. There was no evidence before the Board with respect to whether the strikes which were engaged in by the subcontractors' tradesmen were lawful or unlawful. Section 8 1(8) refers to a strike and does not differentiate between lawful and unlawful strikes. While it is the Board's experience that strikes which arise by reason of the requirement as to the assignment of work or by reason of the assignment of work are usually unlawful strikes, the Board's jurisdiction under section 8 1(8) is not restricted to the imminence or occurrence of unlawful strikes. Complaints which arise under section 81 are usually independent of the process of collective bargaining and the purpose of section 81 is to provide for methods of resolving conflicts between trade unions which arise as a result of competing claims for work during any part of the cycle of collective bargaining.

7Although the complainant requested a cease and desist direction under section 8 1(9) of the Act, the Board did not issue such a direction when all of the parties to this com­plaint gave their undertakings to abide by the terms of the interim order.```