The Board of Education for the City of Toronto v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, 1982 CanLII 863

[1982] OLRB Rep. March 496

2270-81-M; 2271-81-M The Board of Education for the City of Toronto, Employer, v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, Trade Union; The Board of Education for the City of Toronto, Employer, v. Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, Council

BEFORE: R. A. Furness, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members H. Kobryn and F. W. Murray.

APPEARANCES: L. C. Arnold and William Hardy for the trade union; R. J. Drmaj and B. E. Goddard for the employer, Alexander J. Ahee and James "Dave" Johnson for the Council.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 22, 1982

1. The Minister has referred to the Board, pursuant to section 107 of the Act, questions as to whether he has the authority under section 16 of the Labour Relations Act to appoint a conciliation officer in either or both of these references.

2. In Board File No. 2270-81-M, the Minister has characterized the question as whether or not the trade union ("Local 353") is the lawful bargaining agent for the unit of employees which is the subject of this request. In Board File No. 2271-81-M, the Minister has characterized the question as whether or not the Council is presently authorized to act as the exclusive agent for Local 353 for the purpose of bargaining collectively with the employer.

3. On the agreement of the employer, Local 353 and the Council these references were heard together.

4. The evidence before the Board was in the form of agreed facts. Local 353 is a member of the Council. On May 4, 1965, the Board issued a certificate to Local 353 with respect to a bargaining unit of "all journeymen electricians in the employ of [the employer], save and except foremen and persons above the rank of foreman". Local 353 and other trade unions represented by the Council have permitted the Council to bargain on their behalf with the employer since 1965 or 1966. The first collective agreement between the Council and the employer was effective on January 1, 1966. Local 353 has never signed a separate collective agreement with the employer as an individual trade union. The most recent collective agreement between the Council and the employer was made on September 11, 1980, and by its terms came into effect on January 1, 1980, until December 31, 1981.

5. The Council is a council of trade unions as envisaged under section 1(1)(g) of the Act and is not a certified council of trade unions within the meaning of section 1(1)(d) of the Act. Local 353 was initially under the impression that the Council could have been a certified council of trade unions. Local 353 received a petition from the employees of the employer that it claims to represent which indicated a desire to bargain separately and decided to call a meeting of these employees. Local 343 caused the following handwritten notice to be handed to these employees with their paycheques. The notice stated as follows:

Sept. 23/81

Dear Sir & Bro

Please be advised that a meeting is to be held of all the electrical employees of the Board of Education to discuss and vote on a proposal to withdraw from the Building Trades Council bargaining unit and to bargain through Local Union 353.

The meeting is to be held at Brockton J.S., Bloor and Dufferin on Wednesday, Sept., 30th at 5:00 P.M.

Yours fraternally

“W. G. Hardy”

Bus., Mgr.

Neither the employer nor the Council were aware that this meeting had been arranged and held. At this point Local 353 did not intend to withdraw from the Council as a member of the Council. Local 353 wished only to withdraw from the Council bargaining unit. The meeting was held and the employees voted thirty-seven to one in favour of bargaining separately. There are about one hundred and twenty electricians who are employed by the employer.

6. On October 1,1981, Local 353 hand delivered to the employer and to the Council the following letter:

In accordance with the Labour relation Act, 1981, Section 55(1), we are hereby advising that at a special called meeting on Wednesday, September 30, 1981, of the electrical employees of the Board of Education for the City of Toronto, the said employees voted in favour of withdrawing from the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council bargaining unit at the Board. Thus Local Union 353, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who have been previously certified at the Board, intend to bargain on their own behalf directly with the Board to amend the current agreement which expires December 31, 1981.

In addition, and on the same date, the same letter was sent by mail to the trade unions which are set forth in the most recent collective agreement under the heading “Member Unions of the Council are:”. The trade unions are as follows:

Local No. 95 - International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers.

Local No. 128 - International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.

Local No. 2 - International Union of Bricklayers' and Allied Craftsmen.

Carpenters Council - Carpenters' District Council of Toronto and Vicinity.

Local No. 353 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Local No. 721 - International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers.

Local No. 31 - Marble Masons, Tilesetters and Terrazzo Mechanics.

District Council - International Brotherhood of Painters and

No. 46 Allied Trades.

Local No. 506 - Labourers' International Union of North America.

Local No. 46 - The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada.

Local No. 2965 - The Resilient Floor Workers United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Local No. 30 - Sheet Metal Workers' International Association.

Local No. 598 - Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons nationational Association of the United States and Canada.

On October 1, 1981, Local 353 was acting on the assumption (subsequently viewed as mistaken) that the Council was a certified council of trade unions.

7. In a letter dated October 23, 1981, Local 353 sent the following letter to the employer:

Further to our correspondence of October 1, 1981, and in accordance with Article 29, section 29:01 of the agreement currently in effect between the Board of Education for the City of Toronto and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, we are hereby advising that it is the desire of Local Union 353 I.B.E.W., to meet with the Board of Education with the view of negotiating revisions to the aforementioned agreement.

In a letter dated December 3, 1981, the employer replied to Local 353 as follows:

Your correspondence dated October 1, 1981 and October 23, 1981 has been received.

Please be advised that the Toronto Board of Education wishes to continue with the present arrangement for dealing with members of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, including Local 353 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in respect to collective bargaining and administering the agreement.

The Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council has advised the Board that they wish to negotiate revisions to the existing agreement between the Board and the Council and I anticipate that such negotiations will commence in the very near future. As a member of the Council I assume that you will participate in their negotiations.

In a letter dated December 7, 1981, Local 353 responded to the employer as follows:

We received your correspondence dated December 3rd, 1981 signed by Mr. B. E. Goddard and wish to advise that Local Union 353 made its position clear in our correspondence of October 1st, 1981 and we are not interested in changing that position.

It is our understanding that we have complied with the requirements of the Labour Relations Act enabling Local Union 353 to withdraw from the Building Trades Council bargaining unit and as the local union has been certified at the Board we fail to see how the Board can legally or morally refuse to bargain with us.

With the foregoing in mind we respectfully request that you give serious and immediate consideration to contacting this office to make arrangements for a meeting to initiate negotiations.

8. On December 7, 1981, Local 353 consulted its solicitors and on December 8, 1981, the solicitors wrote the following letter to the employer:

Please be advised that we have been retained on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 353, (Local 353), in connection with the above matter.

We are advised that by letter of October 1st, 1981, Local 353 informed you that as a result of a Resolution dated September 30th, 1981, Local 353 was no longer to be represented in Collective Bargaining with the Board of Education by the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council (The Council), by reason that it had withdrawn from the Council Bargaining Unit and would be bargaining with you on its own behalf.

Notice to Bargain was given to you by letter of October 23, 1981, and it appears that you have chosen to ignore Local 353's request to bargain, as evidenced by your letter of December 3, 1981. The position of Local 353 was confirmed to you in their letter of December 7, 1981.

Although the Notice given to you, and to all other required parties, was that envisaged by Section 55(1) of the Act, and was premised on the understanding that the Council was a certified council, such notice was equally effective to give to you the Notice envisaged by Section 51(5) of the Act.

For greater certainty, however, we hereby give notice to you on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, that the said Local 353 will not be bound by any Collective Agreement entered into between the Board of Education and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council.

Please acknowledge to us, or directly to Local 353, that it is your intention to bargain with Local 353 as requested in the Union's letter to you of October 23, 1981. If this acknowledgment is not received by December 15, 1981, we are instructed to take appropriate action to enforce bargaining.

9. On December 16, 1981, Local 353 made a request for the appointment of a conciliation officer and on January 12, 1982, the Council made a similar request.

10. Local 353 pointed out that it had received the certificate from the Board and that the Council was a council of trade unions within the meaning of section l(l)(g). Local 353 stated that it had appointed the Council to be its agent for the purpose of collective bargaining and that by its letters dated October 1 and December 8, 1981, it had given notice of its intention to bargain directly with the employer to amend the current collective agreement. Local 353 adopted the position that before any new collective agreement was entered into it had advised the employer that it would not be bound by any collective agreement entered into between the employer and the Council and that this notice was notice under section 51(5) of the Act.

11. It was argued by Local 353 that, although it had never exercised its bargaining rights in an individual manner, the bargaining rights reverted automatically to it and that the letter dated October 23, 1981, was the exercise of a right to give notice to bargain. Local 353 characterized the letter dated December 8, 1981, as notice to bargain under the collective agreement and also under section 53 of the Act. Local 353 stressed that if the Council were a certified council of trade unions and not a council of trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(g) then the withdrawal accomplishes the same objective. Local 353 reasoned that under section 55(1) notices of the resolution have the effect of withdrawing from the Council's bargaining unit ninety days after notice was given.

12. Local 353 made reference to the constitution of the Council and referred to Article 3 which sets forth the objects of the Council and argued that it was invoking the sections of the Act only to the extent that bargaining rights are affected. Local 353 relied on a decision of the Board in The Labour Bureau of The Ontario Road Builders Association and of The Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, [1979] OLRB Rep. Aug. p.789, in support of its argument that the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer. Local 353 referred to Articles 1.01(c), 2.01(a), (b) and (d) of the collective agreement and to section 51(5) and argued that the Act governs. Local 353 also referred to Articles 2.02, 7.01, 11.01 and 26 of the collective agreement. Local 353 did not oppose the request of the Council for the appointment of a conciliation officer for the trade unions it represents in collective bargaining.

13. The employer posed the question of whether Local 353 could withdraw from participating in negotiations and the collective agreement. As secondary questions, the employer stated that even if Local 353 could withdraw, it had not pursued the proper path under the Act and the collective agreement. The employer argued that sections 55(1) and (2) does not apply because the Council is not a certified council of trade unions. The employer further argued that section 51(4) is applicable and that the collective agreement was binding on the Council at the time Local 353 made its request to withdraw from group negotiation.

14. The employer referred to Article 2.01(b) of the collective agreement and argued that there had been a delegation to the Council of the rights of Local 353 and the Local 353 had agreed not to seek to bargain individually with the employer. It was the position of the employer that Local 353 did not advise it under Article 2.01(b) and would therefore have to wait for the collective agreement to expire and could not request separate bargaining during the term of the collective agreement. The employer further argued that under Article 2.01(d), Local 353 would cease to be a member of the Council and would have to acquire bargaining rights.

15. In the alternative, the employer argued that nothing flowed from the certificate of the Board dated May 4, 1965, because Local 353 had never conducted individual negotiations with the employer. The employer reasoned that under these circumsatances, Local 353 had abandoned its rights under the collective agreement and had acquiesced and delegated to the Council the right to bargain with the employer. The employer argued that even if Local 353 could withdraw, it would go into limbo being no longer covered by a collective agreement and no longer in a position to bargain collectively. The employer pointed out that the Council participates in step four of the grievance procedure, that in Article 3.01 the bargaining unit was defined as "all tradesmen" and that the collective agreement was not signed by the trade unions.

16. The Council, in opposing the request of Local 353 for the appointment of a conciliation officer, adopted the argument of the employer. The Council remarked that it had never been given any notice of the meeting called by Local 353, had not been given an opportunity to address the issue and that the desire by Local 353 to bargain separately had not been raised at meetings of the Council. In addition, the Council expressed concern that Local 353 might be in the position to attend its meetings and be privy to its bargaining strategy and at the same time be bargaining separately with the employer.

17. In reply, Local 353 argued that the argument with respect to section 5 1(4) was purely technical and that section 53(1) overrides the collective agreement in providing that notice in writing could be given. Local 353 stated that if the Board found that there is a defect it would be perfectly simple to serve notice once more on the employer. Local 353 argued that it had never transferred any bargaining rights to the Council and had merely appointed the Council to act as an agent for it in collective bargaining.

18. The preamble and various artlicles of the collective agreement previously referred to state as follows:

PREAMBLE

WHEREAS the Board and the Unions, as hereinafter set out, wish to make a common Collective Agreement with respect to employees of the Board's Maintenance and Construction Department engaged in maintenance and construction work for the Board and to provide for and ensure uniform interpretation and application in the administration of that Agreement.

AND WHEREAS in order to ensure relativity and uniform interpretation and application, the Unions wish to negotiate and administer the same Collective Agreement in concert through a Council and for the purpose wish to maintain the Council and empower it to act as the exclusive agent of each Union.

AND WHEREAS the Board recognizes the formation by the Unions of a Council and wishes to deal with the Council as the exclusive agent of the Unions in negotiating and administering a common Collective Agreement.

ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS

1.01 In this Agreement:

(c) "Union" means the Member Union of the Council.

ARTICLE 2 - THE COUNCIL

2.01 The Unions hereby agree each with all the others and with the Board:

(a) To maintain the Council, composed of those Unions comprising the Council and no others, as their sole representative and exclusive agent for the purpose of bargaining collectively with the Board, and ad ministering this Agreement, and

(b) To delegate, and the Unions do hereby delegate to the Council acting as their sole representative and exclusive agent, all their rights as bargaining agent for members of their respective Unions who come within the scope of this Agreement, and not to seek to bargain individually with the Board, and

(d) That should a member Union of the Council cease to be a member of the Council for any reason, all the rights and privileges of such Union under this Agreement shall be nullified and the Board shall not be required to bargain collectively with such Union unless certification procedures required by law have been made.

2.02 The Council, acting as the sole representative and exlusive agent of the Unions, accepts the delegation of rights as set out in Clause 2.0 1(b) of this Article 2 and assumes the responsibility of bargaining collectively with the Board on behalf of all employees of the Board who come within the scope of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 7- UNION SECURITY

7.01 All employees under this Agreement, as a condition of employment, shall be members of the appropriate Union, and maintain such membership in good standing.

ARTICLE 11 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

11.01 It is agreed that it is the spirit and intent of this Agreement to adjust employee or employer grievances promptly.

Should a dispute arise between the Board and any employee or the Union regarding the interpretation, meaning, operation or application of this Agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable, or where an allegation is made that this Agreement has been violated, or should any other dispute arise, an earnest effort shall be made to settle the dispute in the manner outlined in this Article but any deviation from this procedure shall result in the forfeiture of all rights under the Article.

Disputes shall be dealt with so far as possible by discussion between the individuals directly affected. If a satisfactory solution of a dispute cannot be reached at this level, the dispute shall become a grievance and such grievance shall be processed in order to reach a fair and amicable settlement in accordance with the terms of this Article. Disputes of a general nature between the Board and the Union may be initiated by the appropriate representatives at Step 3.

Where a dispute involving a question of an employee's medical assessment occurs, the Board and the Council may agree to by-pass steps 1 and 2 of the Grievance Procedure.

Step 1

The grieved employee shall refer his grievance to the Steward. The Steward and the appropriate Foreman shall meet to discuss the grievance within five (5) working days of the act causing the grievance. If a settlement of the grievance is not reached within five (5) days the Steward shall refer the matter to the Business Agent of the Union affected and the Foreman shall refer the matter to the appropriate Board Supervisor.

Step 2

If either the Business Agent of the Union or the Board Supervisor considers the grievance to be justified, they shall first seek to settle the dispute.

The grievance will be processed formally after this step. It will be in writing and it will be formally "signed off" if the matter is settled or referred to the next step if not resolved.

Step 3

Failing satisfactory settlement within five (5) working days after the dispute is submitted under Step 2, the Business Manager of the Council or the Business Agent of the Union shall, within seven (7) working days, refer the grievance in writing to the Appropriate Official of the Board.

The Superintendent of Maintenance and Construction, or his Deputy, will review the submission, hold a meeting with the Business Agent of the Union and the Board Supervisor and within five (5) working days after receipt of such submission, render his decision.

Step 4

Failing satisfactory settlement within five (5) working days after the dispute is submitted under Step 3, the Manager of the Council shall, within seven (7) working days, name three representatives to meet with three senior officials of the Board. The Committee will be comprised of persons who have not been involved in any of the preceding steps of the grievance procedure pertaining to the grievance in question. The Committee shall meet within fourteen (14) working days of its appointment, or such longer period as may be mutually agreed upon by the Committee members, to consider the grievance referred to it. This Committee so appointed shall endeavour to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement. A unanimous decision of the Committee shall be final and binding on both parties.

Step 5

Failing satisfactory settlement within five (5) working days after the dispute is discussed by the Joint Committee as appointed in Step 4, the grievance may be refered by the Council to arbitration at any time within twenty-one (21) working days thereafter, but not later.

ARTICLE 26 - UNION REPRESENTA TIVES

26.01 To enable official recognition of Stewards, Union representatives shall inform the Assistant Superintendent, Personnel of the Board in writing of the names of all Stewards as they are appointed and when they cease to act as Stewards.

26.02 The steward shall be given reasonable time during working hours to fulfill his duties and obligations in accordance with the collective agreement.

26.03 The shop steward shall be advised of new employees in his trade and when employees are laid off the shop steward shall be notified prior to the layoff.

26.04 Representatives of the Union shall have access to the area of work during working hours but in no case shall their visits interfere with the progress of the work.

26.05 If an employee is subject to disciplinary action by his superiors, he shall be allowed to have with him a Union representative if he desires.

Section 3 of the constitution of the Council states:

ARTICLE 3

objects

The objects of this Council are:

3.01 To enlist the co-operation and support of every affiliated local union in order to establish and maintain adequate wages and working conditions in the Building and Construction Industry.

3.02 To promote the growth and development af all Building and Construction Trade Unions through a co-ordinated programme of organization of all Building and Construction workers in the area along traditional trade or craft lines.

3.03 To establish and maintain legal and proper business relations and agreements between this Council and other responsible parties, either individuals or associations or government agencies to the extent that the best interests of the Building and Construction Industry be served both for employers and employees.

3.04 To engage in legislative activity for the promotion and protection of the interests of Building and Construction trades [sic] unions and their members, and to protect and advance the interests of the Building & Construction Trades Industry.

19. The preamble to the collective agreement makes it clear that the unions wish to negotiate and administer the same collective agreement through a council and that for that purpose wish to maintain the Council and empower it to act as the exclusive agent for each union. The Board notes that the language speaks in terms of appointing or making the Council the exclusive agent for each union. There is nothing either in the preamble or in the rest of the collective agreement whereby the Council purports to act as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees who are covered by the collective agreement. The collective agreement contains one bargaining unit as set out in Article 3.01 and in Article 1.01(d), employee is defined as any person in the bargaining unit defined in Article 3. Article 2.01(b) states that the unions agree each with the other and with the employer to delegate to the Council acting as their sole representative and exclusive agent all their rights as bargaining agent for members of their respective unions who come within the scope of the collective agreement, and further agree not to seek to bargain individually with the board. Article 2.01(d) states that should a union of the Council cease to be a member of the Council for any reason, all of the rights and privileges of such union under this agreement shall be nullified and the employer shall not be required to bargain collectively with such union unless certification procedures required by law have been made. If the Council is merely the agent for Local 353 and for the other trade unions who are covered by the collective agreement, then the parties are not competent to enact private legislation which would have the effect of taking away the bargaining rights which Local 353 obtained in 1965. On the other hand, if the Council has become the bargaining agent of Local 353 and the other trade unions, then it would be necessary for Local 353 to apply for certification or obtain voluntary recognition with respect to the employer. In this regard, the Board notes that there was nothing before it which suggested that there had been a transfer of jurisdiction as contemplated by section 62 of the Act. In Article 11, which deals with the grievance procedure, it is quite clear that the trade unions who are members of affiliates of the Council play a major role, initially endeavouring to resolve grievances under the collective agreement. For example, provision is made for the appointment of stewards and it appears that the stewards are drawn from the respective trades which are covered by the collective agreement. At steps three and four of the grievance procedure, the manager of the Council plays an increasing role in endeavouring to settle grievances.

20. There are some points of similarity between the instant case and the circumstances referred to in The Labour Bureau of The Ontario Road Builers Association and of The Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, Supra. In the latter case, the form structure of the collective agreement was more clearly to the intent that the constituent trade unions retained their own bargaining rights. In the instant case, the collective agreement has been executed by the business manager and secretary of the Council. While the form of the collective agreement in the instant reference would lead the Board to conclude that in fact the Council is the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit of employees contained in Article 3, the preamble to the collective agreement makes it clear that the Council is merely appointed as the agent of the trade unions, including Local 353, and the Board is unable to conclude that there was any transfer of jurisdiction by Local 353 to the Council.

21. It was agreed that the Council is not a certified council of trade unions as defined in section l(l)(d). The Act contemplates that the role of an uncertified council of trade unions is to act as an agent of the trade unions which it represents rather than as an independent participant and bargaining agent. The decision of the Board in Bathe & McLellan Const. Ltd., [1969] OLRB Rep. Jan. p.1041, held that "trade union" does not include an uncertified council of trade unions. It follows that the Council may neither hold nor exercise bargaining rights in its own name. However, the Council may act as an agent of other trade unions which possess bargaining rights. In the instant reference, the Council is in law acting as an agent for, inter alia, Local 353 and any attempts to clothe the Council in the collective agreement or elsewhere with the appearances of a bargaining agent on its own name are without an legal effect.

22. Local 353 has given timely notice to bargain to the employer in accordance with section 53(1) of the Act, and also in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement if the letters dated October 1 and October 23, 1981 are to be regarded as notice pursuant to the collective agreement. In the view of the Board, the notice contained in those letters is notice under the terms of the collective agreement. Local 353 has given notice as contemplated by section 51(4) of the Act, and has disclosed to the employer, pursuant to section 51(5) of the Act, that it will not be bound by a collective agreement between the Council and the employer.

23. There is nothing in the Council's constitution or in the Act which requires Local 353 to give notice to the Council of the meeting which was held on September 30, 1981, or to permit the Council an opportunity to address the issue before that meeting. The concerns of the Council with respect to bargaining strategy will have to be resolved under the constitution of the Council. Local 353 has withdrawn from bargaining through the Council and the reference in section 51(4) of ceasing to be a member of or affiliated with the Council is to be interpreted as applying to such a state of affairs in so far as it affects collective bargaining. Such an interpretation is consistent with instances where an uncertified council of trade unions exists solely for the purpose of acting as an agent in collective bargaining. In the instant references, the Council, as set forth in Article 3 of its constitution, performs, other functions. It is not necessary that Local 353 withdraw from the Council in order to exercise its bargaining rights in its own name under the Act. Local 353 has exercised its bargaining rights through the Council and there is nothing to support the argument that Local 353 has abandoned its bargaining rights or that Local 353 is required to obtain bargaining rights through certification or voluntary recognition. Local 353 has served notice on the employer as required under the Act.

24. While the Board shares the concern of the Council and the employer that the bargaining conditions may be made more difficult by the withdrawal of Local 353 from the Council, in the view of the Board, Local 353 may pursue its own bargaining with the employer in the exercise of the bargaining rights which it has heretofore exercised through the Council acting as its exclusive agent. There is no requirement that Local 353 either obtain bargaining rights again or that the Board initially declare that the Council no longer possesses the right to bargain as the exclusive agent of Local 353 before Local 353 may exercise its rights under the Act.

25. Having regard to the foregoing, the Board's answer to the Minister is that the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer in each of these references, and that with regard to the reference concerning the Council, the conciliation officer may be appointed with reference to bargaining between the employer and the Council representing the trade unions that it has heretofore represented with the exception of Local 353.

DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER H. KOBRYN;

1. While I agree with the result, I wish to express the following additional reasons in this case which stems basically from my background as a former business manager of a construction local union for sixteen years and an active participant of the Building and Construction Trades Councils both at the local and provincial level since 1953. This participation was as a delegate and an officer, right up to the time I became a member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

2. I supported the purpose and the principles for which building and construction trades councils were organized. The purpose was to have an organization where local unions of the various construction trades could band together. The principles were to give each other mutual support and backing and our motto was "In Unity there is Strength".

3. This application to the Board by one local union to go it alone and this resulting Board decision flies in the face of the above-stated purpose and principles.

4. Legally, I cannot disagree with the majority in this decision because the Ontario Labour Relations Act permits Local 353 of the I.B.E.W. to withdraw from the bargaining unit of this Council, in its negotiations for a renewal of the present collective agreement - a collective agreement that has been renegotiated between the Council and the Toronto Board of Education since its first signing in 1967 on behalf of all its participating affiliates.

5. Morally, there is no possible way in which I can agree with this decision because it goes against the very principles that I hold so dear and actively supported for the past many years. I sincerely hope that this Local union and its members will reconsider their decision to go it alone and preserve this bargaining unit of long-standing and the unity of this Council.