The Labourers International Union of North America v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, 1988 CanLII 3750

[1988] OLRB Rep. October 1068

1882-84-JD The Labourers International Union of North America and The Labourers International Union of North America, Local 607, Complainants v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 628, Premier Pipelines Limited and/or Premier Lilley Resources, Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada, Respondents

BEFORE: N. B. Sattetfield, Vice-Chair, and Board Members L M. Stamp and H. Kobryn.

APPEARANCES: S. B. D. Wahl, T. Connolly and P. Little for the complainants; A. J. Ahee, J. R. St. Eloi and G. Meservier for United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 628; no one appearing for Premier Pipelines Limited and/or Premier Lilley Resources, Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 28, 1988

This is a work assignment complaint made under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act. The complainants, the Labourers International Union of North America and the Labourers International Union of North America, Local 607 (hereafter referred to jointly as "the Labourers") are seeking a direction that certain work in dispute be assigned to its members instead of to members of the respondents United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada~ The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 628 (hereafter referred to jointly as "the UA") and to certain other persons employed under the direction of the corporate respondents Premier Pipelines Limited and/or Premier Lilley Resources (hereafter referred to jointly as "Premier"). A pre-hearing conference before a vice-chair of the Board was held for the complaint, but the pre-hearing vice-chair was not part of the panel constituted to hear the complaint on its merits.
The Board heard the evidence and representations of the parties during 13 days of hearing over a span of approximately 9 months. Premier and the Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada ("the Association") participated in the pre-hearing conference but were not present or represented at the hearings into the merits of the complaint. The Board received extensive and detailed viva voce and documentary evidence. The Board's finding of facts herein have been derived from that evidence and the agreed facts contained in the brief prepared for the parties and this panel of the Board by the pre-hearing conference vice-chair on the agreement of the parties, having regard to the Board's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the submissions of the parties on how the Board was to interpret the evidence.
The general nature of the dispute involves certain work functions associated with a new method of joining steel pipe. The process involved is known by its trade name High Impact Welding, which the Board will refer to as "the Process" and will describe more fully hereunder. The dispute over the assignment of work arose out of the first trial use of the Process on a transmission pipeline. It took place on a six kilometers section of a gas transmission pipe line being built for Trans Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The trial section was located north of Thunder Bay, Ontario. The complaint describes Premier's project as "...the 6.2 km. Trans Canada Pipelines Gas Mainline Project "Line 100-3" (hereafter referred to as "the Project").
The dispute is about which trade, labourers represented by the Labourers, or pipefitters represented by the UA, will perform the work functions involved with: operating or tending certain specially designed equipment used for preparing the ends of pipe lengths which are to be joined; storing, removing from storage and transporting explosives used in the Process; preparing the sets of explosives and applying them to the pipe ends which are being joined; bringing the pipe ends together for joining, connecting detonators to the explosives; connecting the detonators to the detonating device and detonating the explosives.
The Process affects only that part of a traditional pipe line construction project concerned with the joining of the lengths of pipe which make up the line, including preparing the pipe ends for joining. The Process involves the use of special machines for preparing the pipe ends for joining. These are a belling machine which expands the pipe end, without using heat, into a bell shape; two end preparation machines which attach to the pipe ends and clean a predetermined length of the two pipe ends being joined of any protective coating, mill scale, rust and dirt. One end preparation machine is used to clean the external surface of the pipe end referred to as the "spigot" end, and the other is used to prepare the internal surface of the one referred to as the "bell" end. The pipe ends are mated by aligning the two pipe lengths which are being joined, then placing the bell end over the spigot end. After the pipe ends have been mated, they overlap for a length of approximately four and one-half inches. Prior to mating, tape is applied to the external surfaces of the two pipe ends. The spigot end is taped at a point four and one-half inches from the pipe end to mark the limit of the pipe overlap. The tape is applied just prior to the placing of the internal charge. The bell end tape is applied to the last four and one-half inches of pipe end. The tape is applied before the external charge is placed on the pipe. Its purpose is to protect the pipe surface from being pitted by the blast. The area of the join, in other words, the overlap, is encircled by two rings of explosives charges, one encircling the inside of the spigot end and the other encircling the outside of the bell end. The detonation of these explosives charges makes the pipe joint. The pipe joint created by the energy of the explosion was described to the Board by Stephan Istvanffy, one of the two inventors of the Process, as a true metallurgical bond in which the crystalline structure of the metal is altered.
The work on a traditional pipe line spread which would be replaced by the Process where conditions permit its use consists primarily of some of the work traditionally performed by the pipe and welding gangs. The joining of the pipes is accomplished by conventional welding. The ends of pipe being joined are bevelled, usually in the factory. The two lengths are properly aligned, using a line-up clamp if necessary, with the ends a prescribed distance apart. When they have been correctly aligned and "spaced", they are joined by means of a tack weld around a short portion of the circumference of the join. The weld is accomplished by molten metal being placed between the two pipe ends. It freezes to the metal surfaces of the pipe ends and solidifies, forming a metal bridge between the two pieces of pipe. Next, a series of welding passes is made placing molten metal in the weld joint until it is filled, completing the joining of the pipes. In general terms, the job functions which would be replaced by the Process are those involved in the actual welding and the grinding of the welds to remove surface impurities and irregularities.

The work in dispute is described in minute detail in the brief prepared by the pre-hearing conference vice-chair. With minimal exceptions, the Labourers and the UA are in agreement on the descriptive detail. Those exceptions involve the use of particular phrases in describing a step of the Process or a work function. In those situations, the brief records each trade union’s choice of phrase. Counsel for both unions used the description of work in dispute in the brief as a guide in directing their examinations of Istvanffy. As a result, he gave precisely detailed evidence of how the disputed work was performed on the Project. He also testified about the knowledge, skills and approximate length of time needed to perform the various tasks involved with the disputed work. This detail was very helpful to the Board in understanding the Process and the work tasks involved. While the Board has reviewed the detailed evidence, it is unnecessary for purposes of this decision to describe the work with that degree of detail.

Istvanffy's description of the Process as it was applied on the Project can be divided into two parts: work which is not part of the pipe joining cycle and work which is part of it. The Board finds it useful to describe the work in dispute, as it was performed on the Project, in terms of that same division. For each part, the Board will describe in order the major work components involved, the equipment used, the work components which are in dispute and, for purposes of clarity, the work components which are not in dispute.
Work which was not part of the pipe joining cycle was work which is necessary to achieving a good join, but could be done ahead of the joining operation. It was done as much as 15 pipe lengths ahead of the joining operation. The major work components involved were preparing the pipe ends, including belling the pipe and preparing the bell and spigot pipe ends; preparing the explosives charge which encircles the exterior of the bell end of the pipe, hence the external charge, in the explosives preparation truck; transferring the explosives charge to the external charge application jig; and placing the explosives around the outside of the bell end of the pipe. Other tasks involved taping the external surface of the bell end; stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and the bell end explosives charges; and transporting and storing explosives.
The equipment used in these operations included an explosives truck for transporting explosives once or twice daily from the powder magazine to the preparation trucks; an explosives preparation truck for the external explosives charge; a preparation jig f4)r the orderly arrangement of the packs of explosives and packs of sand which make up the external explosives charge; an external charge application jig for applying the external charge to the bell end; a belling machine; a bell end preparation machine; a spigot end preparation machine; four sideboom tractors, one each for the external charge application jig, the belling machine, the bell end preparation machine and the spigot end preparation machine.
The work in dispute, claimed by the Labourers, consists of:

(1) taping the external surface of the bell end;

(2) stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and bell end explosives charges;

(3) loading explosives into and unloading explosives from the powder magazine and maintaining the magazine;

(4) transferring explosives from the powder magazine truck to the explosives preparation trucks;

(5) placing and securing the packs of explosives and sand in the required position on the external charge preparation jig;

(6) transferring the completed external explosives charge from its preparation jig onto the application jig while it is suspended from the boom of the sideboom tractor at the rear of the explosives preparation truck;

(7) placing and securing the external charge application jig in position around the outside surface of the bell end, releasing the explosives charge onto the external surface of the bell end, securing the charge and releasing and removing the empty jig from the pipe end;

(8) transporting the empty jig to the external charge preparation truck;

(9) the work of a second person, when needed, to assist with positioning onto the pipe ends the belling machine and the bell end and spigot end preparation machines; and

(10) operating the bell end and spigot end preparation machines if they are used for any purpose other than the final polishing and calibration of the pipe-end surfaces before application of the tape and explosives charges.

The work not in dispute consists of:

(1) operating the sideboom tractors;

(2) driving the explosives truck and the two explosives preparation trucks;

(3) positioning and operating the belling machine, except as noted in item (9) above; and

(4) positioning the bell end and spigot end preparation machines when it is done by one person and operating them when they are used for the final polishing and calibrating of the pipe end surfaces before applying the tape and explosives charges.

The work in dispute was performed on the Project by members of the pipefitters' trade represented by the UA or by persons who were neither members of that trade nor represented by the UA and were not construction labourers represented by the Labourers. That work included the operation of the two end preparation machines for removing mill scale, rust, dirt and any protective coating from the external surfaces of the ends of each pipe length being joined. That is the work which the machines were designed to perform and is the work which is in dispute with respect to the two machines. There is no evidence that they were intended to be used for any other purpose. The uncontradicted evidence before the Board is that they were not used on the Project for calibrating the pipe end surfaces or final polishing of the prepared surfaces.
Work which was part of the pipe joining operation, as described by Istvanffy, was all work which had to be done or was best done in the cycle between each detonation. Since the pipe joining operation determines the progress of the line, it was important to limit to the extent practical the work to be done in this pipe joining cycle. The work components involved in the pipe joining operation consisted of preparing the explosives charge which encircles the inside of the spigot end of the pipe, hence the internal charge, in the explosives preparation truck; transferring the charge to the internal charge application jig; transporting the internal charge explosives application jig from the preparation truck located approximately 5 or 6 pipe lengths behind the joining operation to the spigot end of the pipe; placing the explosives around the inside of the spigot end of the pipe; bringing the next pipe length to be joined (this is a pipe length with the external charge already attached to its bell end) to a position in line with and approximately two feet from the pipe end to which it is to be joined; the final wiping of the pipe ends with a solvent immediately prior to their mating; the final wiring of the explosives charges on the two pipe ends being joined; mating the pipe ends by bringing the bell end of the newest pipe length over the spigot end of the last one joined; and detonating the explosives charges.
The equipment used in the pipe joining operation included an explosives preparation truck for the internal charge; an internal charge preparation jig; an internal charge application jig; a sideboom tractor for transporting the internal charge application jig between the preparation truck and the spigot end of the pipe line; a sideboom tractor for transporting the pipe length being joined to the end of the pipe line and supporting the pipe length during the blast; a detonating device; and, a portable blast shelter.
The work in dispute, claimed by the Labourers, consists of:

(1) placing and securing the packs of explosives and sand in the required position on the internal charge preparation jig;

(2) transferring the completed internal charge from its preparation jig onto the application jig while it is suspended from the boom of the sideboom tractor at the rear of the internal charge preparation truck;

(3) transporting the internal charge application jig from the preparation truck to the spigot end;

(4) placing and securing the jig into position in the spigot end of the pipe, placing and securing the explosives charge onto the internal surface of the pipe end, and releasing the empty jig from the pipe end;

(5) transporting the empty jig to the internal charge preparation truck;

(6) final wiping of the finished surfaces of the two pipe ends being joined;

(7) final wiring of the explosives charges on both pipe ends in preparation for detonation, including running the blast wires from the charges to the junction box, connecting them to the box, connecting the junction box to the detonating device with a high voltage wire, and detonating the charges.

The work not in dispute consists of:

(1) operating the sideboom tractor during the pipe carry-back operation;

(2) operating the sideboom tractor which transports the internal charge

application jig between the preparation truck and the spigot end of the pipe;

(3) guiding during the pipe carry-back operation the pipe length being joined to the line;

(4) mating the pipe ends; and

(5) building the cribbing which supports the new spigot end of the pipe after joining.

The work in dispute was performed on the Project by members of the pipefitters trade represented by the UA or by persons who were neither members of that trade nor represented by the UA and were not construction labourers represented by the Labourers. A professionally qualified explosives specialist, one of several advisors and technicians contracted for by Premier from the licenser of the Process, operated the detonating device. The same person also was responsible for securing the blast site prior to the blast and signalling that it was safe to return to work after the blast.
In summary, all of the following work is in dispute:

(1) the work of a second person, when needed, to assist with the positioning onto the pipe ends of the belling machine and the spigot end and bell end preparation machines;

(2) placing and operating the spigot end and bell end preparation machines to remove mill scale, rust, dirt and any protective coating from the external surface of the spigot end and from the internal surface of the bell end and for any purpose other than the final polishing and calibration of the pipe-end surfaces before application of the tape and explosives charges;

(3) taping the external surfaces of the pipe ends;

(4) stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and bell

end explosives charges;

(5) loading explosives into and unloading explosives from the powder magazine and maintaining the magazine;

(6) transferring explosives from the powder magazine truck to the explosives preparation trucks;

(7) placing and securing the packs of explosives and sand in the required position on the explosives preparation jigs;

(8) transferring the completed external and internal explosives charges from their respective preparation jigs onto their respective application jigs while the latter jigs are suspended from the boom of the sideboom tractor at the rear of the explosives preparation trucks;

(9) transporting the internal and external charge application jigs from their preparation trucks to the pipe ends;

(10) placing and securing the application jig in position around the inside and outside surfaces of the pipe ends, releasing and securing the explosives charges onto the appropriate surface of ~the pipe ends and releasing and removing the empty jigs from the pipe ends;

(11) transporting the empty application jigs to their preparation trucks;

(12) final wiping of the finished surfaces of the two pipe ends being joined;

(13) final wiring of the explosives charges on both pipe ends in preparation for detonation, including running the blast wires from the charges to the junction box and connecting them to the box, connecting the junction box to the detonating device will a high voltage wire, and detonating the charges.

When the inventors were developing the Process, in order for a work function to be performed in the field, it had to be a necessary function which could not be done better elsewhere. Each component work function which had to be performed in the field was designed to be as simple as possible so that it could be learned quickly with a minimal amount of training, at the same time keeping to a minimal level the number of persons necessary to make the Process function. For example, on the Project, proficient operation of the belling machine was gained in a half day. Learning how to perform the various component tasks of the Process was a matter of hours or days compared with months or years to become proficient in some trades. In the case of tasks which were most critical to the quality of the join, the significant skill factor was the knowledge to recognize when it had been done incorrectly and of the consequences of its not being done correctly. That fact is reflected in the special equipment employed in the Process, such as the end preparation machines and the explosives jigs which have been designed to require a minimal manual skill component for their operation. The types of explosives used, one for the internal charge and another for the external charge, are less sensitive, for example, than dynamite used for the excavation of rock, so that the explosives can be mechanically handled. They are factory prepared as are the sand packs used with them. Their correct arrangement in relation to one another is obtained mechanically by the preparation jigs, and their correct positioning in and on the pipe ends is obtained mechanically by the application jigs. As a result, none of the component tasks, whether taken individually or in any combination relative to the way they were performed on the Project, requires the level of manual skill and trade knowledge commonly associated with skilled construction trades. The most important skill components for most of the tasks is taking care in performing a task, knowing when it has been done correctly and being aware of the consequences of not doing it correctly. For example, a distorted pipe join would be the likely result if the correct four and one-half inches overlap was not achieved on the mating of the two pipe ends, or if the internal charge was not correctly placed, or if the charge was moved during the mating of the pipe ends. So the critical skill factor in those tasks is the ability to recognize whether they have been done correctly.
Skill and training, however, is but one of several criteria the Board usually assesses when it is adjudicating competing work assignment claims under section 91 of the Act. Others are collective bargaining relationships, economy and efficiency, area practice, employer practice and employer preference. The Board has considered also the criterion of job loss in a few cases. These have been limited largely to the newspaper and printing industries. See the Board's decision in Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. April 565, at paragraph 22 and the cases referred to therein. Counsel for the UA argued that job loss was a relevant and appropriate criterion in this case because of the substantial reduction in the number of employees represented by the UA who would be required on a pipe line project where the Process can be utilized as a result of the need for welding being eliminated from the pipe joining process. The Board disagrees. Job loss for the members of the trade union parties to a work assignment dispute has not been, by itself, a factor considered by the Board in deciding the merits of the competing claims for the work in dispute. See, for example, the decisions referred to in the Toronto Star decision, supra. The kinds of circumstances which have led the Board to consider job loss are not present here. Moreover, the Labourers union has borne the adverse impact on the jobs of its members from prior new technology in pipe line construction. Therefore, were the Board to consider job loss outside of special circumstances like those which existed in the Toronto Star case, in order for the criterion to be equitably applied, the Board would have to look at the historical impact of change on job loss. While that kind of evidence may be available in more stable employment relationships characteristic of industrial employment, it likely would not be readily available in the transitory and more cyclical employment relationships characteristic of construction employment. In addition, new technology may erode or eliminate the basis for the existence of a particular craft or trade. When that occurs, it is not the function of section 91 of the Act to preserve that basis. The risk of doing so would be an inherent element of the Board weighing job loss in a work assignment dispute. The Board should not be too quick to adopt any criterion which would have the effect of preserving a particular craft or group of employees when the basis for the existence of the craft or group of employees has been eroded or disappears. In that respect, see Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, [1981] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1598. For these reasons, the Board declines to apply a criterion of job loss in the circumstances of this case.
The Board agrees also with Labourers' counsel that the employer preference criterion would not be appropriate in this case. This is because, apart from evidence that there is a letter of understanding between the UA and the Association, which purports to prescribe certain minimum manning levels of UA classifications for the work at issue, the Board has no evidence before it as to the basis of Premier's preference for assigning the disputed work to the UA. Nor is there evidence either of any beneficial impact on the economy and efficiency of Premier's construction operations on the Project from the assignment of the work to the UA, or of any adverse impact from assigning it to the Labourers.
Since the Project is the first application of the Process to the construction of an operating pipe line, there is no evidence respecting employer past practice under actual pipe line construction conditions. The Board does have evidence about the making of trial joins in isolation of actual pipe line conditions. While this trial or experiment employed members of both trade unions, it is of limited value to the Board in deciding this dispute. The Board does have before it, however, evidence of past practice about work performed on a traditional pipe line spread. The evidence is in the nature of industry practice within the Province of Ontario and does not specifically relate to Premier's past practice. Therefore, other than the evidence about the making of the trial joins, there is no evidence of employer past practice.
Counsel for the Labourers contends also that the Board cannot consider economy and efficiency in the circumstances of this case. This, according to counsel, is because this criterion must be considered in the context of the economic organization of the employer from whom the disputing trade unions are seeking the assignment of the work. Therefore, since Premier did not participate in the hearing on the merits to give that evidence, the Board cannot consider the factor of economy and efficiency. Counsel relies on K-Line Maintenance & Construction Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1185 and Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., [1983] OLRB Rep. Feb. 194. With respect, the Board disagrees with counsel. Whether or not K-Line stands for the principle that economy and efficiency should not be considered in the abstract, as counsel asserts, the Board agrees that it should not be applied in the abstract. However, the Board does not read those decisions as preventing it from considering economy and efficiency when it has a factual basis for doing so. In the instant case, the factual basis is the substantial, detailed evidence of how Premier organized and performed the work in dispute, regardless of which trade did or did not perform it.
Therefore, in all of the circumstances of this complaint, the Board will consider the following criteria: collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency and area past practice, the latter criterion relating to past practice on traditional pipe line construction.
Labourers' counsel argues that, when the Board is dealing with technological change where a newer technology replaces an older one, the Board should ignore the finished product or the particular use to be made of the finished product and look to the nature of the work done by employees in each trade and relate that to the work required to be performed in applying the new technology. Counsel relies on the Board's decision in Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. April 565, the cases cited therein at paragraphs 13 and 14 and the Board's comments at paragraph 19:
We accept the conclusion reached in both Pacific Press, sup ra, and La Presse, supra, that the Board must look to the nature of the work done by the employees and not the use made by the employer of the end product of the work in dispute. If the end product was to be cast as a primary criterion the result would be to downgrade the importance of skills and ability, and efficiency, as primary criteria. Clearly the skills associated with performing a work process and the efficiency with which it is performed are interrelated factors. A craft union is one whose members "are distinguishable from the other employees and commonly bargain separately and apart from other employees through a trade union that according to established trade union practice pertains to such skills or craft." When called upon to resolve competing work claims between craft unions the Board must look to the work and determine if the skills of one of the crafts are more closely related to the nature of the work in dispute and whether or not the use of these skills by persons trained in the craft will have a bearing on efficiency and economy. If we were to restrict ourselves to the end product these considerations, which must be central to the resolution of any jurisdictional dispute, would become irrelevant.

The Board herein does not disagree with that approach but notes that it affects only the criterion of skill and ability and the potential impact of that criterion on economy and efficiency. As important as those factors often are in jurisdictional disputes, the process of resolving such disputes involves a weighing of all relevant criteria and deciding whether they weigh more in favour of one trade than the other.

In addition to the viva voce and documentary evidence dealing with the Process and the work in dispute, the Board received viva voce and documentary evidence relating to the various criteria. The Board has reviewed and weighed the evidence having regard to the Board's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the submissions of the parties on the weight to be given to the evidence in considering each of the criteria. While the Board is not going to set out the evidence in detail or summary, it has assessed the evidence relative to its consideration of the criteria and, where necessary, will discuss particular relevant elements of the evidence in considering the various criteria.

Collective Bargaining Relationships

Premier is bound to the Mainline Pipe Line Agreement for Canada between the Association and each of the Labourers and the UA. It is bound also to the Association's Mainline Pipe Line Agreement for Canada with each of the Operating Engineers and Teamsters unions. Their work is not in dispute in this complaint. Neither the Labourers nor the UA collective agreement claims jurisdiction over the Process or contains any specific reference to it or to any pipe joining method which reasonably could be likened to the Process. The UA agreement, paragraph D, Article II - Scope of Work, does claim jurisdiction for "...the making of joints by any mode or method...". The fuller context of the claim is:

The work of preparing the pipe for welding, all welding and lining up of the pipe, handling the clamps and the making of joints by any mode or method is recognized as the jurisdiction of the [UAI and the employees assigned to such work shall be Journeymen, Graded Helpers, or Welders Helpers, depending on the work involved.".

Article XV - Special Work, contains repeated claims that "...the making of joints is the work of the [UA]...". Paragraph M of the article states in part "If the pipe is made of material other than steel, and no welding is required to be done, . . .it is recognized that.. .the making of joints is the work of the [UA]...". The evidence of Gordon Hodson, retired executive director of the Association, is that, for years, the UA's jurisdiction under its collective agreement with the Association over the making of the joints by any mode or method has been asserted consistently by the UA and recognized by the Association and its members.

While neither collective agreement claims jurisdiction over the Process or contains any specific reference to it, during the negotiation of the 1983-85 collective agreement under which the disputed work was performed, the UA and Association negotiated and exchanged a letter of understanding dated May 31, 1983, which purports to establish new job classifications and minimum manning levels for them for the Process. According to Gordon Hodson, executive director of the Association at the time and a member of its bargaining team, the Association was obligated to respond to a proposal from the UA to negotiate terms respecting the Process for two reasons. First, because the collective agreement between them recognizes the UA's claim to "...the making of joints by any mode or method...". Second, because paragraph C of Article II requires the parties to negotiate about technological change upon notice from either party when changes result "...in a requirement for classifications or special conditions within the jurisdiction of the [UA] not provided for [in the UA Association collective agreement]...". Labourers' counsel argues that the letter should be disregarded by the Board because it is not part of the collective agreement and, in any event, parties were negotiating about the work jurisdiction of another trade (construction labourers) under a threat from the UA to take the issue to impasse; i.e. to strike the contractors over the issue. Counsel argues that Board jurisprudence establishes that it is contrary to the scheme of the Labour Relations Act, particularly section 15, to attempt to use economic sanctions or the immediate threat of economic sanctions in order to force a contractual settlement which compromises the work jurisdiction of another trade union. Counsel cites as authority the Board's decision in Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Aug. 811, particularly paragraph 15 (Toronto Star #2). The instant case is readily distinguishable on its facts, particularly the absence of any evidence from which the Board reasonably could conclude that the UA and the Association reached impasse in their bargaining at all, let alone reached impasse over the demands which Labourers' counsel says would be unlawful to take to impasse. With respect to counsel's argument that the letter was not part of the collective agreement, it is simply without merit. The letter clearly was the product of the collective bargaining relationship between the UA and the Association and intended to influence their collective bargaining relationship respecting the Process.
Accordingly, the criterion of collective bargaining relationships supports an assignment to members of the UA of the work of making joints using the High Impact Welding process. Counsel for the Labourers argues that, where the Process is the method used for the making of the joint, the UA's claim is limited to the work which comprises the pipe joining cycle described generally at paragraph 14. The Board disagrees. Clearly the responsibility for the making of the joint should include work which would directly affect the quality of the joint, whether or not it is part of the pipe joining cycle. Istvanffy's evidence clearly establishes that the determining factor for making any work function part of the pipe joining cycle was whether it had to be done or was best done in between each detonation. This was because the lapse of time between each detonation was the critical time factor controlling the progress of the line. It is clear also from his viva voce evidence and from a fair reading of the description of the Process in the "High Impact Welding Manual", which is Exhibit 9 in this proceeding, that work which is not part of the pipe joining cycle is still essential to the making of a good join. Furthermore, experience in applying the Process may result in the shift of work components between the two phases. Therefore, to hold that "the making of the joint" was only the work done as part of the pipe joining cycle of the Process would be an artificial circumscription of "the making of the joint". In the Board's view, the making of the joint includes all work directly involved with the work in dispute summarized at paragraph 19 above, except:

(4) stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and bell end explosives charge

(5) loading explosives into and unloading explosives from the powder magazine and maintaining the magazine;

(6) transferring explosives from the powder magazine truck to the explosives preparation trucks.

Skill and Training

The evidence establishes conclusively that the work components of the Process have been designed to minimize the manual skills required to carry out each work function. According to Istvanffy, each component work function which needed to be performed in the field was designed to be as simple as possible so that it could be learned as quickly as possible with a minimal amount of training while keeping the number of persons needed for performing the work at the minimal level necessary to make the Process function. In reply, be testified that one of the objectives in designing the Process was to remove skill elements which are difficult to perform under field conditions on pipe line construction projects. As a result of this approach to the design of work functions, the various functions in the Process could be learned in the space of a few minutes, hours or days instead of the months and years associated with some of the skilled trades. Istvanffy gave some specific examples from the Project:

(1) the operation of the belling machine could be learned in minutes and proficiency achieved in a half day; and

(2) to learn to proficiently set and secure the explosives charges on the pipe ends took two to three days in the case of the external charge, and three to four days in the case of the internal charge.

Generally speaking, the criterion of skill and training does not favour either the Labourers or the UA because the skills required do not clearly relate to those of one trade and not the other. There are exceptions, however. Istvanffy repeatedly referred to the need for care in doing the simple components of a job and the "knowledge and judgement" to know when they have been done correctly or incorrectly and understanding the consequences which will flow from them not being done correctly. He gave several examples:

(1) Inserting the internal explosives charge application jig into the spigot end so that each of the jig's depth lugs are placed against the end of the pipe. If the pipe end is as little as a half inch out of place relative to the depth lugs, it would result in a distorted join. There is no opportunity once the pipe ends are placed in the mated position to check the placement.

(2) Similarly, in placing the external charge, while the proper alignment of the packs of explosives and sand is achieved mechanically by the application jig, if they are not symmetrically placed around the circumference of the pipe, it could result in the incorrect depth placing of the charge. Again, the result would be a distorted join.

(3) Making sure the end preparation machines have removed all mill scale, caked-on rust or any other foreign material or imperfection from the pipe ends so there is a uniformity, shiny surface identifiable by the absence of any "salt and pepper" appearance and by the presence of parallel scratches around the entire circumference of the pipe ends. If this end preparation is not done correctly, the join would not meet specifications.

The evidence also establishes that the blaster classification in the Labourers' jurisdiction has the skill and training for the safe handling, setting and detonating of explosives. While the application of these skills in pipe line construction has been destructive blasting, for example, for the removal of rock from the pipe line trench, it is no less applicable to the use of explosives in the Process. The types of explosives used are less sensitive than dynamite to allow the mechanical handling of the explosives on the preparation and application jigs. They also produce less energy than dynamite. Nonetheless, Istvanffy emphasized the need for the persons involved directly with the handling, and detonation of the explosives, including the handling of blasting caps and operating the detonating device, to be skilled in their safe use for the safety of all persons in the area of their use.

Having regard to all of the foregoing, the Board finds that consideration of the criterion of skill and training strongly favours the assignment to Labourers of the following work, as listed in paragraph 19, to be done by or under the direction of a blaster under the Labourers' work jurisdiction:

(4) stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and bell end explosive charges;

(5) loading explosives into and unloading explosives from the powder magazine and maintaining the magazine;

(6) transferring explosives from the powder magazine truck to the explosives preparation trucks;

(7) placing and securing the packs of explosives and sand in the required position on the explosives preparation jigs;

(9) transporting the internal and external charge application jigs from their preparation trucks to the pipe ends;

(10) placing and securing the application jig in position around the inside and outside surfaces of the pipe ends, releasing and securing the explosives charge onto the appropriate surface of the pipe ends and releasing and removing the empty jigs from the pipe ends;

(13) final wiring of the explosives charges on both pipe ends in preparation for detonation, including running the blast wires from the charges to the junction box and connecting them to the box, connecting the junction box to the detonating device with a high voltage wire, and detonating the charges.

Having further regard to all of the foregoing, and to their responsibility for the making of the joint, the Board finds that consideration of the criterion of skill and training favours assignment to classifications coming within the UA's jurisdiction of the following work, as listed in paragraph 19:

(l) the work of a second person, when needed, to assist with the positioning onto the pipe ends of the belling machine and the spigot end and bell end preparation machines;

(3) taping the external surfaces of the pipe ends;

(12) final wiping of the finished surfaces of the two pipe ends being joined.

Area Past Practice

This being a first application of the Process, there is no past practice evidence about it. The Board did hear a substantial amount of evidence and argument about an agreement between the Labourers International Union of North America and the United Association which purports to deal with pipe line construction. It was of no assistance to the Board in this case. The relevant evidence of past practice is limited to established work jurisdiction for the work processes which are part of traditional pipe line construction. The evidence consists of documentary and viva voce evidence describing work functions carried out by 24 crews on a traditional pipe line spread. The documentary evidence is contained in the brief prepared by the pre-hearing vice-chair. Consideration of the criterion of area past practice in the context of practices on traditional pipe spreads favours assigning the following work to the Labourers:

(1) the work of a second person, when needed, to assist with the positioning onto the pipe ends of the belling machine and the spigot end and bell end preparation machines;

(3) taping the external surfaces of the pipe ends;

(4) stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and bell end explosives charges;

(5) loading explosives into and unloading explosives from the powder magazine and maintaining the magazine;

(6) transferring explosives from the powder magazine truck to the explosives preparation trucks;

(7) placing and securing the packs of explosives and sand in the required position on the explosives preparation jigs;

(9) transporting the internal and external charge application jigs from their preparation trucks to the pipe ends;

(11) transporting the empty application jigs to their preparation trucks;

(13) final wiring of the explosives charges on both pipe ends in preparation for detonation, including running the blast wires from the charges to the junction box and connecting them to the box, connecting the junction box to the detonating device with a high voltage wire, and detonating the charges;

and the following work to the UA:

(12) final wiping of the finished surfaces of the two pipe ends being joined.

Economy and Efficiency

The Board has stated earlier in this decision that it would consider this criterion within the factual context of how Premier organized the work on the Project. The Board has also said in FDV Construction Limited, an unreported decision of the Board which issued October 29, 1982, that, when considering this criterion, it should be weighed in the wider context of the employer's operations. The Board herein considers it appropriate to consider the criterion of economy and efficiency in this case in the context of how the Process was applied on the Project and not solely within the narrow context of the detailed elements of each work function in dispute. As the Board noted earlier, the pre-hearing brief described the work in dispute with minute detail, with which the parties agreed with minor exceptions. While this may have assisted the parties in relating the work processes involved with established tasks on a traditional pipe line spread to those involved with the Process, the effect of the detail has been to obscure the integrity and homogeneity of each of the work tasks and how they were performed on the Project. This effect was apparent throughout much of the examination of Istvanffy. Therefore, where a simple element like connecting or disconnecting a compressed air hose, or turning a handle which opens a pressure valve on one of the explosives application jigs is an essential part of a larger task, even if it can be related to the established work jurisdiction of either trade on a traditional pipe line spread, if assigning it to that trade would interfere with the integrity of the larger work task of which it is a part, the criterion of economy and efficiency would favour maintaining the integrity of the larger work task.
Having regard to the foregoing, consideration of the criterion of economy and efficiency favours assigning the following work in dispute, as listed in paragraph 19, to employees in classifications represented by the UA:

(1) The work of a second person, when needed, to assist with the positioning of the belling machine on the pipe end. The operation of the belling machine is the undisputed jurisdiction of the UA. If the operator requires the assistance of a second person to position the machine, assigning the work to another UA classification, a helper for example, would reasonably be a more flexible arrangement than assigning it to a different trade.

(2) Taping the external surface of the spigot end of the pipe. The tape is applied immediately prior to the mating of the two pipe ends and just before the inside charge is placed in the pipe end. Az this point in the joining cycle, the two spacers are preparing for the final line-up and mating of the pipe. That work is the undisputed jurisdiction of the UA. They are free at that point to apply the tape before the internal charge is applied to the spigot end. The only other person at the joining process is the one performing the function of blaster. As the work was performed on the Project, that person walked the application jig from the preparation truck to the pipe. The tape should already have been applied before the jig arrives. Therefore, even if that work is assigned to the Labourers, it would be necessary to inject another person into that part of the Process or to delay the joining cycle if the spacers do not do the taping. Therefore it would be more efficient to assign the taping of the spigot end to the UA.

(3) The final wiping of the finished surfaces of the two pipe ends being joined. This work is done immediately prior to the mating of the pipe ends. Whether the final wiring of the explosives charges on both pipe ends is assigned to the Labourers or the UA, the final wiping is being done approximately at the same time as the wiring. Therefore, were the final wiping to be assigned to the Labourers, it would mean adding another person to, or delaying that part of the Process. It is clearly more efficient to assign the final wiping to the UA.

The same reasons as given in item (1) above for the consideration of economy and efficiency favouring assigning the work of the second person on the belling machine to the UA, would apply if the work of a second person is needed in positioning the bell and spigot end preparation machines. That is, it would give Premier more flexibility if that work were to be assigned to the same trade to which the operation of the machines is assigned.

Consideration by the Board of the criteria referred to above leads it to the following conclusions respecting the work in dispute. The criteria of collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, and area past practice overwhelmingly favours assigning to the Labourers the following work as listed in paragraph 19:

(4) stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and bell end explosives charges;

(5) loading explosives into and unloading explosives from the powder magazine and maintaining the magazine;

(6) transferring explosives from the powder magazine truck to the explosives preparation trucks.

In addition, the criteria of skill and training and area past practice strongly favour also assigning to the Labourers the following work as listed in paragraph 19:

(7) placing and securing the packs of explosives and sand in the required position on the explosives preparation jigs;

(9) transporting the internal and external charge application jigs from their preparation trucks to the pipe ends;

(13) final wiring of the explosive charges on both pipe ends in preparation for detonation, including running the blast wires from the charges to the junction box and connecting them to the box, connecting the junction box to the detonating device with a high voltage wire, and detonating the charges.

While those criteria would seem to favour assigning the following work to the Labourers as well:

(10) placing and securing the application jig in position around the inside and outside surfaces of the pipe ends~ releasing and securing the explosives charge onto the appropriate surface of the pipe ends and releasing and removing the empty jigs from the pipe ends, for reasons given below, the Board is of the view that it should be assigned to the UA.

The criteria of collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, and economy and efficiency strongly favour assigning to the UA the following work listed in paragraph 19:

(3) taping the external surfaces of the pipe ends;

(12) final wiping of the finished surfaces of the two pipe ends being joined,

as do the criteria of collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, and economy and efficiency with respect to:

(1) the work of a second person, when needed, to assist with the positioning onto the pipe ends of the belling machine and the spigot end and bell end preparation machines.

With respect to the work of placing and securing the application jig in position around the inside and outside surfaces of the pipe ends, releasing and securing the explosives charge onto the appropriate surface of the pipe ends and releasing and removing the empty jigs from the pipe ends, it is so integral to the responsibility of the classifications under UA jurisdiction for the making of the join that it should be assigned to them. The evidence is unequivocal that, if the external and internal charges are not correctly positioned at the time of the detonation, the result will be a distorted join of unacceptable quality. Since the UA classifications are responsible for the making of the join, they bear the responsibility for the final quality of the join. Therefore, it is imperative that they have control of the function of placing and securing the external and internal charges. Insofar as the safety aspect of placing and securing the charges is concerned, it is open to Premier to have the blaster who is present at the pipe supervise the placing and securing function.

The complaint as filed requested as relief that the Board direct:

(1) Premier to assign all of the work in dispute at the Project to members of the Labourers International Union of North America, Local 607; and

(2) all employer members of the Association to assign the work in dispute throughout the Province of Ontario to members of the Labourers International Union of North America.

The second direction was not addressed in final argument. In any event, in all of the circumstances of this case, the Board will follow its usual practice and limit its direction to Premier's 6.2 km. Trans Canada Pipelines Gas Mainline Project "Line 100-3".

Having regard to all of the foregoing and pursuant to section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board directs that Premier Pipelines Limited and/or Premier Lilley Resources assign to members of the Labourers International Union of North America and its Local 607 and to members of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada and its Local 628, respectively, the following work directly involved with the High Impact Welding process on the 6.2 km. Trans Canada Pipelines Gas Mainline Project "Line 100-3":

I To classifications within the jurisdiction of The Labourers International Union of North America and its Local 607:

(1) stringing the blast wires in or on the pipe for the spigot end and bell end explosives charges;

(2) loading explosives into and unloading explosives from the powder magazine and maintaining the magazine;

(3) transferring explosives from the powder magazine truck to the explosives preparation trucks;

(4) placing and securing the packs of explosives and sand in the required position on the explosives preparation jigs;

(5) transferring the completed external and internal explosives charges from their respective preparation jigs onto their respective application jigs while the latter jigs are suspended from the boom of the sideboom tractor at the rear of the explosives preparation trucks;

(6) transporting the internal and external charge application jigs from their preparation trucks to the pipe ends;

(7) transporting the empty application jigs to their preparation trucks;

(8) final wiring of the explosives charges on both pipe ends in preparation for detonation, including running the blast wires from the charges to the junction box and connecting them to the box, connecting the junction box to the detonating device with a high voltage wire, and detonating the charges.

II To classifications within the jurisdiction of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada and its Local 628:

(1) the work of a second person, when needed, to assist with the positioning onto the pipe ends of the belling machine and the spigot end and bell end preparation machines;

(3) taping the external surfaces of the pipe ends;

(4) placing and securing the application jig in position around the inside and outside surfaces of the pipe ends, releasing and securing the explosives charge onto the appropriate surface of the pipe ends and releasing and removing the empty jigs from the pipe ends;

(5) final wiping of the finished surfaces of the two pipe ends being joined.

The foregoing assignments are made subject to the following conditions:

(1) The evidence before the Board was that the work described at item (11) of paragraph 19, that is: transporting the empty application jigs to their preparation trucks, was performed by the sideboom without the application jig being guided by anyone on the ground. Since the work was not being performed, the Board's assignment is not to be taken as requiring Premier to assign someone to do the work. If, however, Premier determines that the application jigs require someone on the ground to guide them as they are returned to the truck, that work is to be assigned to the Labourers.

(2) The detailed description of the work in dispute in the pre-hearing brief included references to handling the load line and hooking and unhooking it from the pieces of equipment used to perform the work. The evidence is that hooking on was done only when each piece of equipment was first attached to the load line of the side-boom tractor dedicated to the equipment and was performed either by the sideboom operator or the employee who operated the equipment. At that same time, each piece of equipment was fastened to the stiff arm of the sideboom tractor and remained SO attached when the equipment was being operated, except for the bell end preparation machine. It was necessary to detach it from the stiff arm while it was being operated to prepare the surface of the pipe end re-attach it after that operation. For reasons of economy and efficiency, the Board has included that work in the assignment of the broader task of which it is a part. This is without prejudice to the Labourers' claimed jurisdiction over handling the load line of hoisting equipment when it is used to hoist equipment other than that which is in dispute herein.

(3) The Board's directions are not to be taken as interfering or altering the traditional work functions of the classifications corning within the jurisdiction of the Operating Engineers and Teamsters unions.

(4) The directions are made without reference to the number of persons required to perform the work in dispute and except where they refer to a specific classification, the directions are not intended to be determinative of the classification within the particular trade which is to perform the work.