Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Maxibo Incorporated, 1988 CanLII 3785

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Maxibo Incorporated and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18

[1988] OLRB Rep. August 835

0986-88-JD Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837, Com­plainant v. Maxibo Incorporated and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join­ers of America, Local 18, Respondents

BEFORE: R. O. MacDo well, Alternate Chair, and Board Members W. Gibson and J. Redshaw.

APPEARANCES: S. B. D. Wahl and S. DeLuca for the complainant; Andre Pepin for the respon­dent Maxibo Incorporated; S. Simpson for the respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 5, 1988

I

1This is an application under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act which reads as follows:

Where a complaint is made under subsection (1) and the complainant alleges that a strike is imminent or is taking place by reason of the requirement as to the assignment of work or by rea­son of the assignment of work, the Board may, after consulting any employer, employers' orga­nization, trade union or council of trade unions that in its opinion is concerned, make such interim order with respect to the assignment of the work as it in its discretion considers proper.

The work in dispute involves the dismantling, transport, and reassembly of metal and masonite shelving. That work is being done in connection with the move of a retail store from one location in the East Hamilton mall to another. The employer has collective bargaining relationships with both the Carpenters' and the Labourers' unions. The work was originally assigned to and partially completed by Labourers.

2The applicant contends that an official of the Carpenters' union threatened to install a picket line (which would induce a work stoppage) if the work were not reassigned to members of the Carpenters' union. As a result, several labourers were laid off. The applicant seeks an interim order restoring the previous status quo and requiring the employer to rehire labourers to complete the tasks to which they had previously been assigned. The respondent Carpenters' union contests both the Labourers' characterization of the facts and the utility of an interim order. The employer indicates that he is a carpenter himself, continues to use carpenters for carpenters' work, believes his initial assignment to be proper, but now finds himself "caught in the middle".

II

3We agree with the applicant's submission that a trade union should not secure an advan­tage by threatening an unlawful strike or illegal picketing. We further agree that applications under section 91(8), involving, as they do, an "imminent strike" in connection with a jurisdictional dis­pute should be processed by the Board with the same urgency and expedition as strike applications under section 92 of the Act - subject always to the requirement that affected parties must be given notice. However, in the instant case, it is not disputed that the work in question will be completed by the end of the business day on which the application came before the Board for consultation with the parties. Accordingly, any interim direction that we might make with respect to the assign­ment of that work would be entirely academic. The Board therefore declines to make any interim order. Such determination is, of course, without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties when and if this jurisdictional dispute proceeds to a hearing on the merits.