[1982] OLRB Rep. November 1695
0931-82-JD The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Complainant, v. Ontario Hydro and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Respondents
BEFORE: D. E. Franks, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members C. G. Bourne and H. Kobryn.
APPEARANCES: George Drennan, Alexander Walker and Ches Tuck for the complainant; W ONeill and A. Mollica for Ontario Hydro; Alex J. Ahee and Chris Burrows for the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 23, 1982
This is a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act wherein the complainant, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (herinafter referred to as the "Machinists") complain that certain work has been assigned to members of the respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (hereinafter referred to as the "U.A.").
The work in dispute in the present complaint is the set-up and operation of a Horizontal Boring Mill at the Darlington Construction site so far as it concerns the preparation and fabrication of pipe. The work in dispute, therefore, concerns the operation of a single machine. That machine is located in a pipe fabrication shop on the Darlington Generating Station site of the respondent Ontario Hydro. The pipe fabrication shop contains a number of large machines which are concerned with the fabrication of pipe units for installation at the Generating Station. The Horizontal Boring Mill in question is a rather large piece of machine equipment with the horizontal bed being approximately twenty-eight feet in length. The use of the mill in the pipe fabrication shop is limited exclusively to the preparation of pipe ends prior to welding in the fabrication shop. The pipe is placed on the bed of the machine and the tool bit attached to the rotating mill face then cuts material from the end of the pipe until the desired configuration has been obtained on the pipe end. The pipe end having been finished by the Horizontal Boring Mill, the pipe is then transported to other pieces of equipment in the fabrication shop which then weld the pipe into various shapes.
The respondent, Ontario Hydro, assigned the work to members of the U.A. In fact, Ontario Hydro assigned all of the work in the pipe fabrication shop to members of the U.A. There are on the sar. e site two other "shops", a machine shop and a "rebar threading shop", both of which are manned by the machinists. The machinists are primarily located in the machine shop but when work is to be done in the "rebar shop", a machinist goes to that shop. The Machinists are party to a collective agreement with Ontario Hydro covering machinists on construction work sites. Under that collective agreement the Machinists filed a grievance alleging a violation of section 1.3 of the Agreement. That article reads as follows:
"1.3 (REV)
The bargaining unit under this Agreement shall comprise all Machinists, Machinist Welders, Machinist Millwright-Turbine Erectors, Equipment Repair Machinists, Drill Doctors, Conveyor Mechanics, Machinist Helpers, Machinist Apprentices and Auto and Diesel Mechanic Apprentices employed by the Generation Projects Division and the Lines and Stations Construction Department of the Transmission Systems Division of the Employer, excepting those described hereunder;
(a) persons above the rank of working foreman
(b) employees whose headquarters and usual places of work are Head Office and the Ontario Hydro Service Centre
(c) field employees in the Generation Projects Division and the Lines and Stations Construction Department of the Transmission Systems Division who, at April 30, 1953, possessed full regular status ."
Simply put, the claim of the Machinists is that the Horizontal Boring Mill is a machine typically found in a machine shop and operated by machinists.
The position taken by the respondent, Ontario Hydro, was a neutral one between the two unions, except with respect to matters relating to the economy and efficiency of the operation.
In complaints under section 91 the Board has developed a set of criteria on which the determination of the proper assignment of work in question is based. These criteria, (see, for example, Anchor Shoring Limited [1974] OLRB Rep. Aug. 528) fall into the following headings: collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economic consideration, employer practice, and area practice. We will, therefore, deal with the evidence presented to the Board in this matter under these various headings.
Collective Bargaining Relationships — In the present case the respondent Ontario Hydro has collective agreements with both the respondent U.A. and the complainant Machinists having worked on construction sites. Under both collective agreements the two competing unions claim jurisdiction over the work. In such circumstances, the fact of a collective agreement and the jurisdictional claims that arise under those agreements are not factors established in jurisdiction for either of the two competing trade unions.
Skill and Training — As noted above, the Horizontal Boring Mill which is the piece of equipment which gives rise to this complaint is typically a machine found in a machine shop. In large measure, the basic thrust of the complainant's case was that machinists are trained and have the necessary skills to operate this piece of equipment. In support of this claim, the complainant relies on the certification under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act of machinists and the curricula developed thereto relating to the training of machinists. Indeed, there can be no doubt that in terms of the general operation of such a tool, the complainant union would normally represent people having skills and training required to operate such a piece of equipment.
However, in the circumstances of the present complaint, the skills pertaining to the general operation of a Horizontal Boring Mill are not necessary. It is clear on the facts of this case that the Boring Mill is used for a very limited purpose and its operation is clearly a routine operation. Thus, while in normal circumstances the criteria of skills and training would normally favour the Machinists requesting an assignment of such work, in the present circumstances, they do not create an advantage over the U.A. in the present situation. Indeed, there is evidence that the respondent U.A. has at this job site and at other job sites been capable of supplying members to work in the fabrication shops and operate this or similar pieces of equipment.
Economic Considerations — The position taken by the U.A. is that the operation of the Horizontal Boring Mill could be performed by one of the group of tradesmen working in the pipe fabrication shop. The position of the complainant Machinists is that the operation of that mill, in terms of the economics of the matter is no different from the operation of the equipment in the rebar threading shop on the Darlington Generating job site. Thus, when the equipment in that shop requires operation, a machinist goes from the machine shop over to the rebar threading shop to operate the equipment there. The view of the Machinists is that with respect to the Horizontal Boring Mill a machinist stationed in a machine shop could walk over to the pipe fabrication shop to operate the Boring Mill.
It is at this point that the respondent Ontario Hydro expressed a preference for an assignment to the Plumbers Union. Their position was quite simply that the working time lost by machinists while walking from the machine shop to the pipe fabrication shop was an economic consideration that favoured an assignment to the U.A. Clearly, in their view, the operation of the Horizontal Boring Mill is not a full time operation, and that the most economic arrangement of the work favoured the assignment to a member of the U.A. working in the pipe fabrication shop, and operating this piece of equipment as well as other pieces of equipment in that shop.
We are of the view that the economic considerations raised by the respondent Ontario Hydro clearly favour an assignment of work to the U.A. rather than to the complainant, Machinists Union.
Employer Practice — The position taken by the U.A., on the basis of the evidence before the Board, is that on other generating station sites where there has been a pipe fabrication shop, all the work in that shop including the operation of Horizontal Boring Mills has gone to members of the U.A. This evidence was contested by the Machinists, but was not rebutted. Therefore, it is our conclusion that employer practice is a criteria which also favours the respondent United Association.
Area Practice — In the present case this is not a factor that can be considered largely because of the uncommon occurrence of large capacity Horizontal Boring Mills in on site fabrication shops. Therefore, this factor favours neither of the competing unions.
Having regard to the various criteria, it is clear in the present case that those criteria favour an assignment of work to the respondent U.A. Since the assignment has been made by the respondent, Ontario Hydro, to the U.A. we therefore confirm that assignment and, accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed.