Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, Applicant, v. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Respondent, v. The Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, Intervener
Before: Ian C. Springate, Alternate Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and H. Kobryn.
Appearances: B. Fishbein and Michael Lloyd for the applicant; H. A. Beresford, R. J. Atkinson and D. A. Brown for the respondent; R. A. Werry for the Intervener; J. J. Nyman and John Gartwright for United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27.
Decision of the Board: April 24, 1986
Reasons for Decision
1This is a referral of a grievance to the Board pursuant to the provisions of section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.
2The grievance relates to an alleged violation of the provincial agreement between The Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario. The applicant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 ("IBEW Local 353") is a trade union bound by the provincial agreement. The respondent, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, ("Metropolitan Toronto") is also bound by the provincial agreement.
3These proceedings arise out of a grievance filed by IBEW Local 353 against Metropolitan Toronto alleging that Metropolitan Toronto violated the provincial agreement by having certain construction work at two police stations performed by a company not party to a collective agreement with the union. The Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, which is the relevant designated employer bargaining agency, has intervened in the proceedings. As noted above, the Agency is one of the parties signatory to the provincial agreement. None of the other parties has challenged its right to intervene in these proceedings. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 ("Carpenters Local 27") also seeks to intervene in the proceedings. Its right to do so, however, is challenged by Metropolitan Toronto.
4Carpenters Local 27 acknowledges that it is not bound by the provisions of the agreement being grieved under. It contends, however, that because it has had a bargaining relationship with Metropolitan Toronto longer than any other construction trade union, it is in a unique position to offer insight into Metropolitan Toronto's past involvement in the construction industry, as well as the degree of control which Metropolitan Toronto exercises over construction work performed on its behalf. Accordingly, submits the Local, it should be given standing to participate in these proceedings. Carpenters Local 27 further contends that it should be given standing because the Board's decision in this case will affect its own bargaining relationship with Metropolitan Toronto.
5Carpenters Local 27 is a stranger to the provincial agreement being grieved under. Its rights will not be directly affected by these proceedings. Accordingly, it has no legal right to participate in the proceedings. See: Mosser v. Marsden [1892] 1 Ch. 487 and Napev Construction Limited [1979] OLRB Rep. Sept. 886. The only issue is whether, as a matter of discretion, we should give Carpenters Local 27 some sort of standing to participate. We believe not. If members or officials of Carpenters Local 27 have information relevant to these proceedings, it is open to one of the other parties to call the individuals in question as witnesses. There is no need to add Carpenters Local 27 as a party for this purpose. As for the claim that Carpenters Local 27 will be affected by the Board's decision in these proceedings, in that the Local is not a party to the proceedings, it cannot as a matter of law be legally affected by the outcome. To the extent that the decision reached by the Board in this case might be considered as a precedent in future cases, to that extent it might be said that the decision in this case might affect Carpenters Local 27. However, it will presumably affect the Local in the same way as it will affect any other union or employer, including other municipalities, who find themselves involved in a similar fact situation. For the Board to accept concerns about the precedential value of a decision as a basis for granting status to strangers to the relevant collective agreement in a section 124 arbitration proceeding would mean opening this, and many other 124 proceedings, to any number of employers and trade unions who could claim such an interest. This would only serve to needlessly complicate proceedings and seriously undermine the speed and economy which section 124 was designed to achieve. In this regard, see: Williams Contracting Ltd., [1980] OLRB Rep. Jan. 121.
6Having regard to the foregoing, the Board is satisfied that Carpenters Local 27 has no legal right to participate in these proceedings and should not be given standing to participate.
7This matter has been set down to continue on May 14 and 15, 1986. In that this panel has not heard any evidence with respect to the merits of the grievance, the panel is not seized of the matter.```