United Cement, Lime, & Gypsum Workers International Union v. Dominion Paving Limited

2807-80-R; 0085-81-U United Cement, Lime, & Gypsum Workers International Union, Applicant! Complainant, v. Dominion Paving Limited, Respondent

BEFORE: Ian Springate, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members B. Armstrong and J. Ronson.

APPEARANCES: G. Charney, Q.C., R. Aveling and A. Natale for the applicant/complainant, Raimo T. Heikkila, Joe Racco and Michael Mann one for the respondent.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 5, 1981

1. File No. 2807-80-R is an application for certification in which the applicant trade union originally requested the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote. The union now seeks to be certified pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Labour Relations Act. File No.0085-81-U is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that three individual grievors as well as the complainant trade union were dealt with by the respondent contrary to the provisions of sections 3, 64, 66 and 70 of the Act.

2. The respondent engages in two distinct types of operations. In the summer months it is involved in the construction and repair of roads, work which comes within the construction industry. Some forty employees are employed for this summer construction work, including truck drivers, labourers and equipment operators. From November to April of each year the respondent engages in the removal of snow and the salting of roads in Metropolitan Toronto, work which is not within the construction industry. The respondent generally employs about sixteen employees in its winter operation, most of whom temporarily reside in a camp on Murray Road in the Downsview district of North York so that they can be sent out whenever the weather requires.

3. There is a time gap of a few weeks between the end of the respondent's winter operations and the commencement of its summer operations. Further, although approximately half of the respondent's summer employees in any one year will return to work for the respondent during the following summer, very few employees work for the respondent during both its summer and winter operations. Almost all of the employees who work for the respondent during the winter do not also work for the respondent during its summer season.

4. The application for certification was filed on March 25,1981, towards the end of the respondent's winter operations. It is the contention of the respondent that given the difference in the nature of its two types of operations, as well as the increase and changeover in staff between its winter and summer operations, the bargaining unit should be restricted to en­compass only employees in its non-construction summer operations. For its part, the union takes the position that the bargaining until should take in employees engaged in both the respondent's summer and winter operations. As for the fact that such a bargaining unit would encompass both construction and non-construction operations, the applicant points to past cases where a union filed an application for certification under the general provisions of the Act and the Board certified it with respect to a bargaining unit which encompassed employees both in and outside of the construction industry. As for the fact that there were only some fifteen employees at work on the date of the making of the application, as opposed to the approximately forty employees the respondent employs during the summer months on its construction operations, the union contends that in dealing with seasonal operations such as the respondent's, the Board should not concern itself with fluctuations in the number of employees, but look only at the employees actually at work on the date of the making of the application.

5. In instances where an employer engages in both construction and non-construction activities, the Board's general practice is to group its employees into separate construction and non-construction bargaining units. However, where an employer engages in both construction and non-construction operations simultaneously using the same work force, the Board will on an application under the general provisions of the Act describe a bargaining unit which encompasses both operations. See: Ethier Sand & Gravel Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Oct. 962. In the instant proceedings, the respondent's construction and non-construction operations are not only carried out at different times of the year, but they are carried on with essentially different work forces. The nature of the work, and conditions of employment differ significantly between the two types of operations. In addition, whereas the applicant seeks a bargaining unit described in terms of "all employees" of the respondent, in recognition of the craft organization of the industry and so as to reduce the possibility of future jurisdictional disputes, the Board's practice is to restrict units in the construction industry (even where the application is filed under the general provisions of the Act) so as to include only the construction trades actually at work on the date of the making of the application. See: Fielding Construction Company, [1970] OLRB Rep. Jan 1205 and A. N. Shaw Restoration Ltd., [1981] OLRB Rep. March 241. In the instant case there were no construction trades at work on the date of the making of the application. Taking all of these considerations into account, we are satisfied that the bargaining unit under consideration should be restricted only to employees engaged in the respondent's non-construction operations.

6. Having regard to the above determination, and the representations of the parties with respect to the bargaining unit description, the Board finds that all employees of the respondent in Metropolitan Toronto, save and except those engaged in construction work, non-working foremen, persons above the rank of non-working foreman, office and clerical staff and persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week, constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining.

7. The parties disagree as to the number of employees in the bargaining unit on the date of the making of the application. This dispute centers around the status of the three grievors, all of whom were discharged on March 25, 1981, the date of the filing of the application. All of the grievors were at work on March 25, 1981 prior to their discharge. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that regardless of the legality of their discharges they were employees of the respondent on the day that the application was filed and that accordingly, their names should have been included on the list of employees. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered, but rejected, the respondent's contention that one of the grievors, Mr. Morris Gazee, was not employed on a full-time basis by the respondent, but rather was a casual relief driver who worked primarily for a broker. Mr. Gazee worked at the respondent's camp for twenty-seven days prior to his discharge, twelve of them directly for the respondent and fifteen days allegedly for a broker. The respondent's general practice is to pay a broker so much a day to supply a truck and driver. With respect to Mr. Gazee, however, the broker was paid only for his truck, and the respondent paid Mr. Gazee directly, making the appropriate deductions from his pay. It is clear that Mr. Gazee was hired by the respondent and at all times was under the control of the respondent. The respondent could also terminate Mr. Gazee' s services, as in fact it did. ln these circumstances, we are satisfied that at the relevant time, Mr. Gazee was in fact employed on a full-time basis by the respondent, and that he was not primarily the employee of anyone else.

8. Having regard to the above, to the agreement of the parties concerning the remainder of the list of employees, the Board is satisfied that on the date of the making of the application there were a total of fifteen employees in the bargaining unit. The union filed evidence of membership indicating that at the time of the filing of the application six of the fifteen employees in the bargaining unit were members of the trade union.

9. In filing its application for certification, the union requested the taking of a pre­hearing representation vote. The matter came first before a differently constituted panel of the Board which determined a voting constituency and directed the taking of a pre-hearing vote. Such a vote was in fact conducted, but having regard to charges filed by the union and its request to be certified outright pursuant to section 8 of the Act, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and none of the ballots counted.

10. The union's request that it be certified pursuant to section 8 centers around the respondent's discharge of the three grievors, namely, Frank Colicchia, Morris Gazee and Jeff Ireland. Accordingly, we turn now to the section 89 complaint which alleges that the three grievors were discharged contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

11. The three grievors testified before the Board. Testifying on behalf of the respondent were Mr. Joseph Racco, the respondent's general manager, as well as Mr. Michael Mannnone, one of the respondent's foremen. The grievors when testifying corroborated each other on all major issues, and their evidence appeared reasonable in all of the circumstances. The testimony of Mr. Mannone and Mr. Racco differed in a number of material respects from that of the grievors. On certain of these same issues, the testimony of Mr. Mannone and Mr. Racco was sharply contradictory. Further, we found certain portions of the testimony of both Mr. Mannone and Mr. Racco to lack reasonableness when considered against the background of the other evidence before us. In all of these circumstances, we have accepted the evidence of the grievors wherever it is in conflict with that of the respondent's witnesses.

12. Mr. Ireland first started with the respondent in the latter part of July, 1979 as a construction worker. Although summer construction workers do not usually work for the respondent during the winter months, Mr. Ireland did in fact work for the respondent during the 1979-80 non-construction winter season, although apparently in March of 1980 he left the respondent's employ before the end of the season to go west. Mr. Ireland was re-hired by the respondent in November of 1980 for the 1980-81 winter season. Mr. Ireland was discharged by the respondent on March 25, 1981. Approximately five days previous to his discharge, Mr. Racco had advised Mr. Ireland that he could work for the respondent during the 1981 summer season driving a truck which the respondent had newly acquired.

13. Mr. Frank Colicchia is a close friend of Mr. Ireland. Mr. Colicchia started working for the respondent in February of 1980, but left before the end of the 1979-1980 winter season to go west with Mr. Ireland. Mr. Colicchia was re-hired in October or November 1980 to work as a truck driver during the 1980-1981 winter season.

14. Mr. Gazee was hired by the respondent towards the end of February 1981. Mr. Gazee is a qualified equipment operator, and on the day he was hired he was advised by Mr. Racco's father that there would be work for him the following summer as an equipment operator. As noted above, although Mr. Gazee was classified by the respondent as "part-time casual winter employee", in fact he put in full-time hours for the respondent.

.15. On March 22, 1981, Mr. Gazee and Mr. Ireland discussed the possibility of having the respondent's employees represented by a trade union. The next day, Mr. Gazee contacted Mr. A. Natale, an international representative with the complainant trade union. Later that day, the two men met and Mr. Gazee received from Mr. Natale a number of unexecuted union cards which took the form of combination applications for membership and receipts. On March 24th, Mr. Gazee and Mr. Ireland approached employees to get them to sign the union cards. Mr. Colicchia was one of the employees who signed a card. Later that same day, Mr. Gazee and Mr. Ireland met for about half an hour with Mr. Natale near the camp and handed him the completed cards.

16. On the morning of March 25, 1981, a person identified at the hearing as a fair wage officer visited the respondent's camp, and began to talk to the employees about their working conditions. Their conversation was ended by Mr. Mannone, the respondent's foreman, directing the employees to perform a check on their trucks, including a radio check. During the check, a number of employees, including Mr. Gazee and Mr. Colicchia put the microphones up to their truck's radio. The evidence is that this type of activity was not uncommon. When Mr. Mannone became aware of this conduct on March 25, he warned the employees in no uncertain terms that the respondent would not tolerate this type of activity. At the hearing, those responsible for terminating Mr. Gazee and Mr. Ireland, namely Mr. Mannone and Mr. Racco respectively, did not contend that this incident with the radios was connected with their termination.

17. Subsequent to the truck check, Mr. Mannone advised Mr. Gazee that he was no longer required on the truck he had been driving, since Dave Durbin, a dispatcher who actually owned the truck, would be driving it. Mr. Gazee left the camp, but left behind his sleeping-bag, since he felt he might be called back.

18. After Mr. Gazee left the camp, he went to see Mr. Natale, the union's representative. Mr. Natale then telephoned Mr. Racco and asked why Mr. Gazee had been let go. Mr. Racco testified that he told Mr. Natale that he would check into the matter, and get back to him within half an hour. It is undisputed that Mr. Racco did not get back to Mr. Natale that day. Mr. Racco testified that he told Mr. Natale that Mr. Gazee had two hours to pick up his sleeping bag, and that if he showed up at any other time and something was later found to be missing, even a nail or a screw, he would hold Mr. Gazee responsible.

19. Meanwhile, back at the camp, one of the employees, Mr. Albert Lethbridge, had been drinking beer outside of the employee sleeping quarters. Mr. Mannone testified that he directed Mr. Lethbridge to go inside, at which point Mr. Lethbridge and Mr. Ireland told Mr. Mannone that he had no right to tell employees where to drink. Mr. Mannone added that Mr. Lethbridge (who was discharged a week later for being intoxicated on the job) threatened to kick in his head.

20. At some point, either shortly before or shortly after the incident with Mr. Lethbridge, Mr. Mannone approached Mr. Ireland and asked why he was causing a ruckus. When Mr. Ireland asked what he meant, Mr. Mannone replied that the respondent and Metro knew that Mr. Natale had been around. Mr. Mannone also indicated that Mr. Ireland would later be fired.

21. Shortly after the exchange between Mr. Mannone and Mr. Ireland, Mr. Mannone parked a front-end loader across the entrance to the camp. When asked why he had done so, Mr. Mannone replied that Joe Rocco was on his way to the camp and no one was supposed to leave. Mr. Racco testified that he directed that the front-end loader be placed across the entrance to ensure that personnel from the Metropolitan Toronto Roads Department which was located next door could not use the camp's parking lot for turning their cars around.

22. At about 4:15 p.m., Mr. Racco arrived at the camp. After a brief discussion with Mr. Mannone, Mr. Racco had the front-end loader moved and called a meeting of the men. Mr. Ireland and Mr. Colicchia did not go into the meeting. Shortly thereafter the two were called into the meeting. When Mr. Ireland and Mr. Colicchia walked into the meeting, Mr. Racco told them they were fired because they were "pricks". At about 4:30 p.m., while Mr. Colicchia was packing his belongings, he was advised that he had until midnight to remove his truck, which at the time was being rebuilt and was non-operational, from the respondent's camp. At about 4:45 p.m., Mr. Racco told Mr. Ireland that the truck had to be out by 5:00 or he would drop the bucket of a loader on it. The truck was finally pushed out of the camp with the assistance of a number of employees prior to the 5:00 p.m. deadline.

23. Section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act states as follows:

On an inquiry by the Board into a complaint under subsection 4 that a person has been refused employment, discharged, discriminated against, threatened, coerced, intimidated or otherwise dealt with contrary to this Act as to his employment, opportunity for employment or conditions of employment, the burden of proof that any employer or employers' organization did not act contrary to this Act lies upon the employer or employers' organization. 1975, c. 76, s. 21(1).

Accordingly, in this case the burden of proof is on the respondent to establish on the balance of probabilities that it did not act contrary to the Act in discharging the grievors.

24. In the Barrie Examiner case, [1975] OLRB Rep. Oct. 745, the Board stated:

... the effect of the reversal of the onus of proof is to require the employer to establish two fundamental facts. First, that the reasons given for the discharge are the only reasons and, second, that these reasons are not tainted by any anti-union motive. Both elements must be established on the balance of probabilities in order for the employer to establish that no violation of the Act has occurred.

25. During his examination-in-chief, Mr. Racco was asked why he discharged Mr. Ireland and Mr. Colicchia, to which he replied that it was because when he met with the employees on March 25, 1981 and asked if there were any problems, Mr. Ireland kept insisting that he had a right to do what he wanted in the camp. Later Mr. Racco widened this claim to allege that both Mr. Colicchia and Mr. Ireland had insisted at the meeting that they could do what they wanted. In cross-examination, Mr. Racco stated that the men had also been fired because they had failed to obey orders and had been drinking in the yard of the camp. Mr. Racco testified that he knew that Mr. Ireland and Mr. Colicchia, along with Mr. Gazee and Mr. Lethbridge, had been drinking because he had been so advised by Mr. Mannone. Mr. Mannone, however, testified that in his discussion with Mr. Racco, he did not specifically refer to either Mr. Ireland or Mr. Colicchia. Further, Mr. Mannone, in his testimony, made no reference to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Colicchia or Mr. Gazee as having been drinking in public. The only person Mr. Mannone said had been drinking was Mr. Lethbridge, who threatened to kick in Mr. Mann one's head. It is of some interest to note that Mr. Lethbridge was not discharged on March 25th. Further, with respect to Mr. Racco's claim that Mr. Ireland and Mr. Colicchia had misbehaved during the meeting, we accept the evidence of Mr. Ireland and Mr. Colicchia that they were called into the meeting and summarily fired without engaging in any discussion at all with Mr. Racco.

26. The person who terminated Mr. Gazee's services was Mr. Mannone. Mr. Mannone testified that after the visit of the fair wage officer, he telephoned Mr. J. Guilbeault, a driver who was apparently working in Kitchener at the time. According to Mr. Mannone, he advised Mr. Guilbeault that things were hectic at the camp, that the men were telling him what he could or could not do, that there was no controlling them after their meeting with the fair wage officer. According to Mr. Mannnone, Mr. Guilbeault offered to return and take over the truck being driven by Mr. Gazee. Mr. Mannone further testified that he then called Mr. Gazee into the office and advised him that he was no longer required for the truck and was free to go, although he would be paid for the entire day, and that if the company needed him again he would be recalled. In cross-examination, Mr. Mannone agreed that Mr. Gazee had not been recalled to replace either Mr. Ireland or Mr. Colucchia after they had been fired. According to Mr. Mannone, one of them was replaced by a relief driver and the other by Mr. Dave Durbin, the dispatcher, who was in turn replaced by a relief dispatcher.

27. Mr. Mannone did not explain to the Board why of all the drivers, Mr. Cazee was the one chosen to be let go after the visit of the fair wage officer. In giving his testimony, Mr. Racco indicated that he had been advised by Mr. Mannone that Mr. Gazee's drinking had been a problem. Mr. Mannone, however, made no mention of Mr. Gazee having a drinking problem. Further, when on cross-examination Mr. Racco was advised that Mr. Gazee had testified that he did not drink alcoholic beverages, Mr. Racco indicated that he could not dispute that contention. Another consideration in this matter is that although Mr. Mannone testified that he called Mr. Guilbeault to replace Mr. Gazee, and that Mr. Durbin later replaced either Mr. Ireland or Mr. Colicchia, in fact on March 25th, Mr. Mannone advised Mr. Gazee that his services would no longer be required since the truck he had been driving would in future be driven by Dave Durbin, who actually owned the truck.

28. The reasons advanced by the respondent's witnesses as to why the three grievors were singled out to be terminated were contradictory and less than convincing. On the other hand, two of the grievors, Mr. Gazee and Mr. Ireland, were the ones who signed up the employees into the union and later met Mr. Natale near the camp to hand him the completed cards. Mr. Mannone's comments to Mr. Ireland establish that the respondent had somehow become aware of Mr. Natale's presence near the camp, and also that Mr. Ireland was active with the union. In the circumstances, it is likely that whoever advised the respondent of Mr. Ireland's union involvement also advised the respondent of Mr. Gazee's even more active involvement. Mr. Colicchia is a close friend of Mr. Ireland. It would not have been unreasonable for the respondent to assume that since Mr. Ireland supported the union, so did Mr. Colicchia, as in fact he did.

29. Having regard to the reversal of the onus of proof, to be successful in this matter the respondent was required to establish that the reasons advanced by it to explain the termination of the three grievors were the only reasons for their termination and that the reasons were not tainted by any anti-union animus. Given the evidence before us, we must conclude that the respondent has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the reasons advanced by it for terminating the three grievors were in fact the real reasons. In these circumstances, we are led to conclude that the respondent terminated the three grievors in contravention of section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

30. In these circumstances ,the respondent is directed to compensate the grievors for loss of earnings and other employment benefits, with interest calculated in accordance with the principles set out in the Board's Practice Note No. 13, dated September 8, 1980. The evidence indicates that if the three grievors had not been terminated on March 25, 1981, they likely would have been laid off on March 31, 1981 as the respondent began to wind down its winter operations by first laying off employees who were driving rented trucks, as in fact the three grievors were. Accordingly, compensation for the winter period is to be calculated up to March 31, 1981. In that we are satisfied that prior to the events in question the respondent intended to employ both Mr. Ireland and Mr. Gazee in its non-construction summer activities, Mr. Ireland and Mr. Gazee are to be compensated for this period as well, subject to the general principles of mitigation. In reaching this decision, we have considered but rejected the contention of counsel for the respondent that any compensation must be restricted to employment in the bargaining unit. The respondent discharged the two men contrary to the provisions of the Act. They are, in turn, entitled to be put back into the same position they would have been in had the respondent not unlawfully terminated them, and had they not been terminated they would have worked for the respondent during its summer season. In his final submissions, counsel for the union contended that Mr. Colicchia had also been promised summer employment. The evidence before us, however, does not support this contention. The Board will remain seized of this matter in the event the union and the respondent are unable to reach agreement on the amount of compensation owing to the three grievors.

31. Section 64 of the Act prohibits an employer from interfering with the selection of a trade union or the representation by employees of a trade union. We are satisfied that the respondent's actions in terminating the three grievors because of their support for the trade union also constituted a breach of section 64 of the Act.

32. We turn now to consider the union's request that it be certified pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Act. Section 8 provides as follows:

Where an employer or employers' organization contravenes this Act so that the true wishes of the employees of the employer or of a member of the employers' organization are not likely to be ascertained, and, in the opinion of the Board, a trade union has membership support adequate for the purposes of collective bargaining in a bargaining unit found by the Board pursuant to section 6 to be appropriate for collective bargaining, the Board may, on the application of the trade union, certify the trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

33. For the Board to apply section 8, three conditions must be met, namely:

1. the respondent has violated the Act;

2. because of the violation, the true wishes of the employees are not likely to be ascertained. In the instant case, that means that they are not likely to be ascertained from the results of the pre-hearing representation vote; and

3. the union has membership support adequate for the purposes of collective bargaining.

34. In support of the section 8 request, the union relied on the discharge of the three grievors, as well as on a telephone call by Mr. Racco to Mr. Ireland on the day prior to the pre­hearing representation vote. During their telephone conversation, Mr. Racco urged Mr. Ireland not to turn up to vote on pain of Mr. Racco informing the authorities that Mr. Ireland had at one time been improperly drawing unemployment insurance. Mr. Ireland did not show up to cast a ballot in the pre-hearing representation vote. We view Mr. Racco's conduct in this regard as employer interference with the selection of a trade union by an employee, and accordingly are satisfied that it amounted to a violation of section 56 of the Act.

35. We have already determined that the respondent contravened sections 64 and 66 of the Act. Having regard to the nature of the breach and the impact of the discharges on other employees, particularly the discharges of Mr. Ireland and Mr. Colicchia which were carried out in front of the other employees, as well as Mr. Racco's phone call to Mr. Ireland, we are satisfied that as a result of the respondent's breaches of the Act, the true wishes of the employees are not likely to be ascertained from the results of either the pre-hearing representation vote, or any other vote the Board might now order.

36. As already indicated, on the date of the filing of the application, the union had as members six of the fifteen, or forty per cent, of the employees in the bargaining unit. This, in our view, shows adequate support among a "core" of employees to allow the union to engage in collective bargaining. See: K-Mart Canada Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. Jan. 60. We recognize that perhaps half of the employees employed by the respondent at the time of the filing of the application will not return for the forthcoming winter season. However, in our view, high employee turnover should not bar a union from certification under section 8. We also recognize that if the union is to achieve any meaningful long-term success, it must expand its support among both returning and new employees; however, in our view, it should be given the opportunity to attempt to do so. Further, so as to relieve against the "chilling" effect which the respondent's termination of the three grievors likely had on employee support for the union, the respondent is to post the notice referred to below.

37. Having regard to the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Act, the Board hereby certifies the applicant as the bargaining agent of all employees of the respondent in Metropolitan Toronto, save and except those engaged in construction work, non-working foremen, persons above the rank of non-working foreman, office and clerical staff and persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week.

38. The respondent is directed to post a copy of the attached notice, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, in a conspicuous place where it is likely to come to the attention of employees in the bargaining unit. The notice is to be posted when the respondent commences its non-construction winter season, and it is to remain posted for sixty consecutive working days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to ensure that the notice is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Reasonable physical access to the premises shall be given by the respondent to a representative of the complainant so that the complainant can satisfy itself that this posting requirement is being complied with. If, during the forthcoming winter season, the respondent employs bargaining unit employees at more than one camp or other location in Metropolitan Toronto, the above posting requirements shall apply to each such camp or other location.

Appendix

The Labour Relations Act 1379

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board

WE HAVE POSTED THIS NOTICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH WE AND THE UNION PARTICIPATED. THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD OUND THAT WE VIOLATED THE ABOUR PF[ATION ACT IN MARCH o~ p981 BY DISCHARGING PRANK COLICCHIA, VCPRIS GAZED, AND JEFF IRELAND,

THE ACT GIVES ALL EMPLOYEES THESE RIGHTS:

To ORGANIZE THEMSEL'/ES~

To FORM, JOIN AND PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWFUL

ACTIVITIES OF A TRADE UNIONS

To ACt TOGETHER FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING~

~O REFRAIN FROM DOING ANY AND ALL OF THESE THINGS.

WE ASSURE ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING THAT INTERFERES WITH THESE RIGHTS,

WE WILL NOT DISCHARGE ANY EMPLOYEE BECAUSE HE HAS SELECTED

UNITED CEMENT, LIME AND GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AS HIS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE,

WE WILL PAY FRANK COLIOCHIA, ~ORRIS GAZEE AND JEFF IRELAND FOR ANY EARNINGS

LOST AS A RESULT OF THEIR DISCHARGE, PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST.

WE WILL BARGAIN SITH UNITED CEMENT, LIME AND GYPSUM ¹CRKERS INTERNATIONAL

UNION AS THE DULY CERTIFIED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT

DESCRIBED BELOW AND IF AN UNDERSTANDING IS REACHED, WE WILL SIGI! A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE

UNION.

THE BARGAINING UNIT IS:

ALL EMPLOYEES OF COMINION PAVING LIMITED IN ~ETROPOLITAN ORONTO,

SAVE AND EXCEPT THOSE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK, NON—WORKING

FOREMEN, PERSONS ABOVE THE RANK OF NON—WORKIIJG FOREMAN, OFFICE

AND CLERICAL STAFF AND PERSONS REGULARLY EMPLOYED FOR NOT MORE THAN

TWENTY-FOUR HOURS PER WEEK.

PER: (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)

This is an official notice of the Board and must not be removed or defaced.

This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive working days.

DATED this 5TH dayof OCTOBER 19 81