Ontario Labour Relations Board
File Nos.: 1113-84-JD; 2351-84-JD; 2352-84-JD Date: April 30, 1985 Citation: [1985] OLRB Rep. April 526
Between:
International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 721, Complainant, v. Delform Construction Limited and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Respondents, v. Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association, Intervener #1, v. Form Work Council of Ontario, Intervener #2, v. Inducon Construction (Northern) Inc. and Inducon Development Corporation, Intervener #3;
International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 721, Complainant, v. Delform Construction Limited, Inducon Development Limited, Cooper Construction Ltd., and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Respondents, v. Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association, Intervener #1, v. Form Work Council of Ontario, Intervener #2;
International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 721, Complainant, v. Verdi Forming Ltd., Sussex Contractors Ltd., Matthews Group Ltd., Ontario Formwork Association, and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Respondents, v. Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association, Intervener #1, v. Form Work Council of Ontario, Intervener #2
Before: Ian C. Springate, Alternate Chairman, and Board Members I. M. Stamp and B.L. Armstrong.
Appearances: David Starkman and Stan Arsenault for International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 721 Carl Peterson for Delform Construction Limited, Verdi Forming Ltd., Matthews Group Ltd. Sussex Contractors Ltd. and Ontario Formwork Association Joseph M. Watson and Jeffrey Davies for Inducon Development Co. B. Fishbein and R. Latito for Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183 and Form Work Council of Ontario Karl Mallette for the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association David Brisbin and George Knapton for the Rodmen Employer Bargaining Agency.
Decision of the Board; April 30, 1985
These are three complaints under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act relating to the assignment of certain work. As of yet, the Board has not heard any evidence with respect to the merits of the complaints. This decision deals only with two preliminary matters raised by the parties.
The two preliminary matters arise out of the wording of subsections (1) and (2) of section 91 which are set out below:
91.-(l) The Board may inquire into a complaint that a trade union or council of trade unions, or an officer, official or agent of a trade union or council of trade unions, was or is requiring an employer or an employers' organization to assign particular work to persons in a particular trade union or in a particular trade, craft or class rather than to persons in another trade union or in another trade, craft or class, or that an employer was or is assigning work to persons in a particular trade union rather than to persons in another trade union, and it shall direct what action, if any, the employer, the employers' organization, the trade union or the council of trade unions or any officer, official or agent of any of them or any person do or refrain from doing with respect to the assignment of work.
(2) The Board may in any direction made under subsection (1) provide that it shall be binding on the parties for other jobs then in existence or undertaken in the future in such geographic area as the Board considers advisable.
With respect to all three complaints the International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 721 (Local 721) is seeking a Board direction of the type referred to in section 9 1(2), namely one which will be binding on the parties for jobs other than the job giving rise to the complaint. The respondents contend that the Board lacks jurisdiction to make such an order. In support of this contention, the respondents rely on statements contained in previous Board decisions as to when the Board will generally make a direction of the type referred to in section 91(2). The respondents contend that these circumstances are not present with respect to instant complaints. We are satisfied that the argument being raised by the respondents is not one which relates to the Board's jurisdiction to make the type of order contemplated by section 91(2). Rather, the argument goes to the question of whether it would be appropriate for the Board to make such orders. That is a matter best left to be decided after the complaints have been heard on their merits and not by way of a preliminary motion.
The second preliminary issue turns on the wording of section 91(1). The complaints before the Board relate to the claim that the respondents Delform Construction Limited and Verdi Forming Ltd. have assigned certain work to members of Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 as opposed to members of Local 721. It is not disputed that these are the types of complaints contemplated by section 91(1) and that at the conclusion of the hearing the Board, if it deems it appropriate, will be able to make directions to Delform Construction Limited and Verdi Forming Ltd. relating to the work assignments. However, Local 721 takes the position that the Board will also have jurisdiction to make directions binding on the other named respondents. In support of this position the Local relies on the wording in section 91(1) that permits the Board to direct what any person shall do or refrain from doing with respect to the assignment of work. The respondents, however, all contend that the Board lacks jurisdiction to make an order against any of the respondents other than Delform Construction Limited and Verdi Forming Ltd.
Section 91(1) provides that a complaint can be made against a trade union, a council of trade unions, an officer, official or agent or a trade union or council of trade unions that is requiring an employer or an employers' organization to assign work to certain persons. It also provides that a complaint can be made against an employer that is assigning work to persons in a particular trade union as opposed to persons in another trade union. With respect to such complaints the Board can direct what action, if any, is to be taken by the employer, the employers' organization, the trade union or the council of trade unions or any officer, official or agent of any of them. This wording clearly enables the Board to make a direction against the party being complained about. However, in addition, section 91(1) also provides that the Board can direct what action any person shall do or refrain from doing with respect to the assignment of work. If it were the case that a direction could only be to the party being complained about, there would be no need for the additional reference to any person. This, to our mind, suggests that the Board can, in an appropriate case, make a direction to a person other than the party being complained about. While it is always difficult to speculate, perhaps such a direction might be made so as to ensure that another Board direction to the party being complained about can in fact be carried out.
Having regard to the foregoing, we are satisfied that the Board does have jurisdiction to make a direction under section 91(1) against persons other than the party being complained about. Given that we have heard no evidence, we cannot say whether these are the type of cases where such a direction might be appropriate. Nor are we in a position to decide which of the respondents qualify as a person. These are matters which will have to wait until the complaints are dealt with on their merits.
This panel is not seized on the merits of the complaints.