Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. Gottcon Contractors Limited, 1989 CanLII 3062

[1989] OLRB Rep. July 757

2678-88-R; 2857-88-R Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506, Applicant v. Gottcon Contractors Limited, Gottardo Properties (Dome) Inc., Gottardo Properties Limited, Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc., Gottardo Con­tracting Co. Limited, Gottardo Holdings Company Ltd., Gottardo Management Limited, and Gottardo Corporation, Respondents; The Bricklayers, Masons Inde­pendent Union of Canada, Local 1, Applicant v. Gottcon Contractors Limited, Gottardo Properties (Dome) Inc., Gottardo Properties Limited, Gottardo Con­tracting (1980) Inc., Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited, Gottardo Holdings Company Ltd., Gottardo Management Limited, and Gottardo Corporation, Respondents v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506, Intervener

BEFORE: Louisa M. Davie, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. Gibson and J. Redshaw.

APPEARANCES: E. M. Mitchell and E. D. Ferreira for the applicant, Labourers; Susan Ursel and John Meiorin for the applicant, Bricklayers; Carl Peterson for the respondents; no one appearing for the intervener.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 18, 1989

1. As a result of our earlier ruling rendered on March 23, 1989, the Board heard these files together. The Board heard the evidence and representation of the parties in respect of certain issues which arise in these two applications on July 5th, 6th, and a portion of the day on July 10, 1989. Thereafter the Board adjourned the proceedings for the remainder of the day scheduled for hearing on July 10, 1989. When the hearing was reconvened on July 11, 1989 the Board rendered the following oral ruling:

We have before us two Board files. The first is Board File No. 2678-88-R which is an application for certification filed by the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 (hereinafter referred to as Labourers, Local 506). The respondents to that application are; Gottcon Contractors Limited, Gottardo Properties (Dome) Inc., Gottardo Properties Limited, Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc., Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited, Got­tardo Holdings Company Ltd., Gottardo Management Limited, and Got­tardo Corporation. In its application for certification, Labourers, Local 506 seek to rely upon section 1(4) and section 63 of the Labour Relations Act "with respect to the relationship between the respondents". At the hearing on March 23, 1989, counsel for the Labourers, Local 506 indicated that the Labourers, Local 506 was not pursuing its application pursuant to section 63 of the Act.

The Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada, Local 1 (hereinaf­ter referred to as Bricklayers, Local 1) have filed an intervention in the Labourers, Local 506 certification application. Bricklayers, Local 1 asserts that it represents employees and is the bargaining agent of employees who may be affected by the application. The intervener asserts that the collective agree­ment between the Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto Inc. and Bricklayers, Local 1 covers employees in the bargaining unit sought by the Labourers, Local 506 in its application for certification and therefore that collective agreement bars or renders as untimely the application for certifica­tion.

In addition we have before us Board File No. 2857-88-R which is an application pursuant to section 1(4) and section 63 of the Act in which the applicant, Bricklayers, Local 1 seeks a declaration that the same group of eight compa­nies which are respondents in Board File No. 2678-88-R are related employ­ers within the meaning of section 1(4) of the Act, or alternatively that "a sale of a business within the meaning of the Act has taken place as between the respondents."

At the hearing on March 23, 1989, counsel for the Bricklayers, Local 1 indicated that the Bricklayers, Local 1 was not pursuing its application pursuant to section 63.

Labourers, Local 506 has filed an intervention in the Bricklayers, Local 1 application in which Labourers, Local 506 assert, in effect, that the Bricklay­ers, Local 1 application be dismissed because Bricklayers, Local 1 has "un­reasonably delayed" in bringing this application and "knew or ought to have known of the existence of and the relationship between the respondents." In addition Labourers, Local 506 assert Bricklayers, Local 1 is attempting to extend and not merely preserve its bargaining rights.

Having regard to the submissions of counsel for the Bricklayers, Local 1 and the Labourers, Local 506, and the evidence before this Board, we hereby dismiss the applicants' application pursuant to section 63 of the Act in both Board File No. 2678-88-R and Board File No. 2857-88-R.

At the commencement of these proceedings the Board heard the submissions of the parties in respect of the appropriate order of proceeding with these two files. The Bricklayers, Local 1 had requested that these applications be consolidated. On March 23, 1989, after considering the submissions of the parties, the Board filed as follows:

Having considered all the submissions the Board has determined that it will have to hear the evidence and representations of the par­ties in respect of the section 1(4) applications first. We propose to hear all of that evidence and those representations together without deciding which of the two section 1(4) we are dealing with first. In our view the employees affected by these two section 1(4) applica­tions are the same employees. Any section 1(4) declaration granted would be effective, at the latest, as of January 27, 1989 the date upon which the Labourers, Local 506 applied for certification. In light of these factors we are of the view that it is more expeditious and sensible to hear all of the evidence at once. At this time we wish to alert the parties that their evidence and submissions should address whether all eight companies or perhaps some lesser number of those eight companies should be joined as this is a possible result.

We therefore proceeded to hear the evidence and representations of the parties in respect of the two section 1(4) applications first. Thereafter, and depending on the disposition of the two section 1(4) applications the Board would turn to any other outstanding matters in the application for certifica­tion filed by the Labourers, Local 506 including the description and composi­tion of the bargaining unit, and the effect, if any, of the collective agreement between the Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto and Bricklayers, Local 1.

The evidence and submissions of the parties in respect of the issues raised in the two section 1(4) applications was heard by the Board on July 5th, 6th and 10th. During the course of their submissions the parties also touched upon matters relating to the appropriate description of the bargaining unit sought by the Labourers, Local 506 in its application for certification and argued that those matters affected the Board's discretionary powers in dealing with the section 1(4) applications.

Although the appropriateness of the bargaining unit description has been considered by this panel, we have done so only in the context of our discre­tionary powers under section 1(4) and whether or not a common employer declaration ought to be made in either or both of these applications pursuant to section 1(4). Our decision today therefore does not purport to deal with either the description or composition of the bargaining unit or the effect if any of the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement with the Masonry Con­tractors Association of Toronto.

During the course of these hearings, the Board also heard evidence in respect of certain companies which form part of what has been referred to as the "Gottardo Group of Companies" although these companies were not listed as respondents in either section 1(4) application. More specifically, the evidence indicates that Renato Gottardo properties is a sole proprietorship and acts as a landlord for property personally owned by R. Gottardo. Got­tardo Properties (Dome) Inc., a named respondent, is a holding company which holds the lease on a SkyDome box. In addition, the evidence discloses that Gottardo Properties is a partnership of Gottardo Properties Limited and Gottardo Corporation. Both Gottardo Properties Limited and Gottardo Corporation are named respondents although Gottardo Properties itself is not a respondent to these proceedings. Gottardo Properties however, acts as an owner/developer and does not employ anyone directly in the construction industry. The parties agreed that this fact should be noted in this decision.

The parties agree, and having regard to that agreement and the evidence before us the Board finds, that the three pre-conditions to the granting to a section 1(4) declaration have been met in respect of the following named respondents; Gottcon Contractors Limited, Gottardo Properties Limited, Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc., Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited, Got­tardo Holdings Company Ltd., Gottardo Management Limited, and Got­tardo Corporation. Those various entities carry on associated or related activities or businesses and are under common direction or control. The issue therefore is whether the Board ought to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants and make a common employer declaration in either or both of these section 1(4) applications.

The parties have agreed that any section 1(4) declaration made in either of these applications would not encompass the remaining named respondent namely Gottardo Properties (Dome) Inc. as that company is not now and does not intend to be an employer in, or carry-on business in, the construc­tion industry.

Having found that the pre-conditions to a section 1(4) declaration have been met in respect of these seven respondents we now turn to address whether or not the Board ought to exercise its discretion in either or both of these appli­cations, and if so, the manner in which that discretion ought to be exercised. In making its determination in respect of that issue the Board made and con­sidered the following findings of fact.

Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. and its predecessor companies is and was primarily a masonry contractor. Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. was incor­porated on November 18, 1980. Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. (hereinaf­ter referred to as Gottardo (1980) is the successor to Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited. Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited was a member of the Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto from 1961 until 1980 when Gottardo (1980) took over. Gottardo (1980) is bound to the collective agree­ments between the Masonry Contractors Association and the Bricklayers Independent Union, Local 1 covering journeymen and assistants (hereinafter referred to as the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreements).

Renato Gottardo started as a masonry contractor in the early 1950's. Renato Gottardo ran the business through Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited until his son, Aldo Gottardo, joined the business in 1978. Since 1978, Renato Gottardo and Aldo Gottardo have jointly run Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited and then the group of companies when they were established in the 1980's.

Beginning in 1978 Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited started to act as a gen­eral contractor in addition to performing masonry work. In addition to acting as a general contractor, the company would also perform excavation and concrete forming work. In 1980 Gottardo (1980) continued the same work previously performed by Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited. Gottardo Con­tracting Co. Limited became dormant and remains a shell.

From 1980 until 1985, Gottardo (1980) continued acting as a general contrac­tor and masonry contractor. In addition, Gottardo (1980) would perform excavation and concrete forming foundation work.

In performing this work, Gottardo (1980) used journeymen bricklayers, bricklayers' assistants and general labourers. When help was required on the excavation work the company would use both bricklayers' assistants and gen­eral labourers to assist with the excavation, the building of the concrete forms and the back filling of the trenches. Conversely, when the bricklayers' assistants required help, the company would assign general labourers to per­form bricklayers' assistants' work on the masonry portion of the job.

Beginning in 1980, Gottcon Contractors Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Gottcon") began to bid on jobs as a general contractor. From 1980 until 1985, Gottcon did not employ anyone directly and would subcontract out all the work. Gottcon sub-contracted approximately 90% of the masonry and general labouring work to Gottardo (1980) from 1980 to 1985.

In 1985, Gottardo (1980) transferred its general labourers to Gottcon. Begin­ning in 1985, Gottardo (1980) had ceased to act as a general contractor.

Prior to this transfer of general labourers to Gottcon, and while employed by Gottardo Contractors (1980) Inc., the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agree­ments were applied to those persons subsequently transferred to Gottcon. While employed by Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. these persons were paid in accordance with the rates of pay established in the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreements and dues and health & welfare benefits were deducted and subsequently remitted to the union on their behalf. After the transfer of the general labourers to the Gottcon payroll, the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreements were no longer applied to those general lab­ourers then employed by Gottcon in-so-far as, for example, they were not paid in accordance with the rates of pay set out in the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement and neither dues nor health & welfare benefit deduc­tions were made or remitted to the Bricklayers, Local 1 union on their behalf.

Gottcon, as a general contractor, continued to sub-contract out approxi­mately 90% of the masonry work to Gottardo (1980). When Gottcon and Gottardo (1980) were on the same construction site the companies continued its previous practice of assisting each other with their respective crews. For example, general labourers employed by Gottcon would help bricklayers' assistants working for Gottardo (1980) when needed while bricklayers' assis­tants working for Gottardo (1980) would help the general labourers working for Gottcon in the excavation of the site, the construction of the concrete forms and the back filling of the trenches. The companies followed this prac­tice on a daily basis when both Gottcon and Gottardo (1980) were on the same site. Given the fact that Gottardo (1980) derives most of its masonry work from Gottcon, the two companies are on the same site almost all the time.

After 1985, Gottardo (1980) continued to bid for both masonry and excava­tion work. If Gottardo (1980) was successful in tendering for both masonry and excavation work, Gottardo (1980) would perform the masonry work and Gottcon would perform the excavation and form work with its general lab­ourers. When the bricklayers' assistants performed general labourers' work, they are under the supervision of the Gottcon Superintendent. When the general labourers of Gottcon are helping the bricklayers' assistants of Got­tardo (1980), they are under the supervision of the Gottardo (1980) Superin­tendent.

Mr. John Meiorin, who has been the secretary/treasurer of Bricklayers, Local 1 since 1962 testified that he was aware that Renato Gottardo, one of the principals of these various respondents, had several companies including a company which acted as a general contractor in the construction industry. Mr. Meiorin testified however, that he and the union were unaware, until the Labourers, Local 506's application, that any of these other companies (and in particular Gottcon) employed any persons or that those persons were performing work which the Bricklayers, Local 1 assert falls within the scope of their collective agreement. Mr. Meiorin further testified about a telephone conversation which he had with Mr. Renato Gottardo approximately five to six years ago during which Mr. Gottardo indicated that some of his employ­ees were being employed as general labourers rather than bricklayers or bricklayers' assistants, but also indicated that those persons would continue to be members of the union, would continue to be paid in accordance with the terms of the collective agreements, and dues and remittances on their behalf would continue to be sent to the union. From this telephone conversa­tion Mr. Meiorin understood that Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. was per­forming some general labouring work using bricklayers' assistants who con­tinued to be members of Bricklayers, Local 1.

From the totality of the evidence we find that since 1985 Gottardo Contract­ing (1980) Inc. has employed and continues to employ "bricklayers" and "bricklayers' assistants". Persons employed by Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. in these classifications are covered by the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement. Since 1985 Gottardo has not employed directly any persons clas­sified as "general labourers". Gottcon employs the "general labourers" and the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement has not been applied to those persons. The bricklayers, bricklayers' assistants and general labourers of these two companies work side by side, as an integrated work force and are often used interchangeably to perform the work required. Where Gottcon's general labourers are used to assist the Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. bricklayers and/or bricklayers' assistants however, they continued to be paid by Gottcon in accordance with the individual rate of pay. Similarly, when Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. bricklayers' assistants are used to perform general labourer work they continued to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement, and dues and other deductions continue to be made and remitted on their behalf. In those cases, where the employees of these companies are interchanged, an internal accounting procedure is used to invoice the one company for the services provided by the employees of the other company i.e. Gottcon invoices Got­tardo Contracting (1980) Inc., and Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. pays Gottcon for labour provided when Gottardo (1980) uses Gottcon general labourers while the reverse is also true.

Without in any meaning to minimize the able and thorough arguments of counsel in respect of our discretion, all of which have been considered by the Board, we briefly summarize their positions as follows.

Counsel for the Bricklayers, Local 1 argued that the Bricklayers, Local 1 application ought to be determined first primarily because of Bricklayers, Local 1 existing bargaining rights. Counsel argued that in its application (Board File No. 2857-88-R) a common employer declaration ought to be made in order to preserve the bargaining rights of Bricklayers, Local 1. Counsel submitted that the facts disclosed that the bargaining rights of the applicant have been eroded as the work of the bricklayers' assistants covered by the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement has been transferred to, and is performed by the non-union general labourers employed by Gottcon. Counsel argued that as soon as Bricklayers, Local 1 became aware of this sit­uation (after the filing of the Labourers, Local 506 certification application) it promptly filed its section 1(4) application. Counsel argued that the Brick­layers, Local 1 had met the "due diligence" test enunciated in the Great Atlantic & Pactfic Company of Canada Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. March 285, and had not slept on its rights. Counsel submitted that the Bricklayers, Local 1 did not, and could not have asserted its bargaining rights as against the various corporate entities prior to the filing of its section 1(4) application because the union was unaware, and in view of Mr. Meiorin's telephone con­versation with Mr. Gottardo and the assurances he received during that con­versation, Local 1 need not have taken any further steps to become aware, that these other entities, (and in particular Gottcon), employed persons who were being used to perform work covered by the Bricklayers, Local 1 collec­tive agreement.

In respect of the Labourers, Local 506 application for a section 1(4) declara­tion,it was asserted that the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement was a bar to the Labourers, Local 506 application for certification, would disrupt the existing bargaining rights of Bricklayers, Local 1 and would lead to numerous future jurisdictional disputes and would unduly fragment a natural and appropriate bargaining unit. It was ultimately submitted that for those reasons the Labourers, Local 506 application pursuant to section 1(4) and its application for certification should be dismissed.

Counsel for the Labourers, Local 506 argued that its application pursuant to section 1(4) should be granted while the application of the Bricklayers, Local 1 should be dismissed, both because of the delay of the union in asserting its rights, and because the Bricklayers, Local 1 application was an attempt to extend and not merely preserve bargaining rights.

Counsel for the Labourers, Local 506 argued that in the circumstances of this case, (and after consideration of the description of the bargaining unit for which the Labourers, Local 506 have applied - a unit which would specifi­cally exclude employees in any bargaining unit for which any trade union held bargaining rights as of the date of the Labourers' application) the grant­ing of a section 1(4) declaration would not interfere with the existing bar­gaining rights of the Bricklayers, Local 1 although such a declaration would reflect the true wishes of the employees. It was submitted that to deny the Labourers, Local 506 application for certification and its request for a com­mon employer declaration would deprive the employees employed as gen­eral labourers, persons to whom the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agree­ment has not been applied in at least the past four years, of the right to be represented by the trade union of their choice. It was submitted that the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement did not apply to general labourers but only to bricklayers' assistants. Alternatively, it was argued that if that collective agreement did apply to general labourers, the Bricklayers, Local 1 had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of these general labourers because of its failure to represent those persons in the past four years.

Counsel for the respondent made several submissions respecting the descrip­tion of the bargaining unit asserting that the issues in respect of that matter were interwoven and directly related to the issues in respect of our discretion pursuant to section 1(4). We intend to address those issues more fully when we get to that stage of the proceedings where we deal with the bargaining unit and the effect, if any, of the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreements.

Counsel argued that the Labourers, local 506 could not, in an application made pursuant to section 144(1) of the Act, an application which relates to the ICI sector of the construction industry, apply for a bargaining unit which excludes certain persons who fall clearly in the Ministry's designation order made under section 139 which relates to Labourers, Local 506 (in this case bricklayer's assistants or brick tenders). He argued that the bargaining unit applied for in this application was an attempt by Labourers, Local 506 to "carve out" part of its trade and that such was not permitted under the scheme of province-wide bargaining contained in the Act. It was submitted that as the Labourers, Local 506 could only apply for its "standard" unit, encompassing all employees referred to in its designation, the granting of a section 1(4) application to the Labourers (and the subsequent certification application) would disturb the existing bargaining rights of the Bricklayers, Local 1 and would bring these two unions into direct conflict creating numer­ous jurisdictional disputes, various grievances including subcontracting viola­tion grievances, and would make no labour relations sense given the inte­grated nature of the respondents' work forces and the Bricklayers, Local 1 existing bargaining rights. Counsel did not make any submissions regarding the issue of delay with respect to the Bricklayers, Local 1 section 1(4) appli­cation. Instead he asserted that either both applicants should be successful (at which point we would inevitably have to conclude that the Labourers, Local 506 application was untimely and barred by the Bricklayers, Local 1 collective agreement if we found that collective agreement to apply to per­sons described for present purposes as "general labourers"), or neither should be successful. Indeed, counsel argued that, as the Bricklayers, Local 1 had intervened in the Labourers, Local 506 application, and was therefore a participant in that proceeding, the Board could not in that application (Board File No. 2678-88-R) grant a section 1(4) declaration to the Labour­ers, Local 506 without granting one to Bricklayers, Local 1. It was submitted that the Board had no jurisdiction to make a declaration which was limited to one trade union (i.e. Labourers, Local 506) and not encompass the other trade union in the circumstances of this case.

This is but a brief synopsis of the extensive submissions of the parties. The Board has very carefully considered those submissions, especially the various submissions which turn upon matters relating to public policy and the sound labour relations considerations which guide the Board in the exercise of our discretion. Having regard to the evidence before us and the submissions of the parties we hereby dismiss the application brought by Bricklayers, Local 1 in Board File No. 2857-88-R. In our view, Bricklayers, Local 1 has not acted promptly or with due diligence to protect the bargaining rights it now asserts it has.

The Bricklayers, Local 1 was aware of the existence of Gottcon. Moreover, Mr. Meiorin was expressly alerted to the fact that certain employees were now doing primarily general labourers' work. Notwithstanding the assur­ances of Mr. Gottardo, under the circumstances of this case the union should have investigated and/or monitored the various activities of these corporate entities. Prior to the filing of this application, the union has not taken any active steps to assert its collective agreement in respect of the general labour­ers employed at Gottcon. Nor did the union take any steps to acquire the bargaining rights in respect of employees employed by any of the respon­dents other than Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. either by way of a certifi­cation application, voluntary recognition or a timely section 1(4) application. This notwithstanding the fact that the respondents have carried out their activities in an open and public manner by displaying construction signs bear­ing the names of both Gottcon and Gottardo at its construction projects, by driving vehicles which bear the names of one or the other company, and most importantly by routinely and regularly using union and non-union employees side by side and interchangeably on the same construction projects.

If this were a "stand alone" application brought in the absence of the Lab­ourers, Local 506 application, the Board would normally dismiss an applica­tion brought four years after the circumstances which first gave rise to the application came into existence. In those circumstances, as in the present, the Board finds that the union knew, or should have known, of the circum­stances and should have acted within a reasonable period of time to protect or assert its bargaining rights. Four years is not such a reasonable period of time.

In our view the fact of the Labourers, Local 506 application does not affect such an analysis. To hold otherwise would enable the Bricklayers, Local 1 to establish a collective agreement bar in respect of bargaining rights which have not been asserted and/or which have been left exposed since 1985. For these reasons Board File No. 2857-88-R is dismissed.

In respect of Board File No. 2678-88-R the Board does not accept counsel's submissions that it is without jurisdiction to make a section 1(4) declaration in respect of one party such as the applicant while at the same time refusing to make the declaration in respect of another party such as the intervener. The facts and circumstances and the policy considerations which the Board considers in the exercise of its discretion in respect of one party may be absent or may be outweighed by facts or circumstances or policy consider­ations as applied to another party. In our view such is the present case.

Although the Board has dismissed the Bricklayers, Local 1 application for reasons of delay, no such factor is present when we turn to the Labourers, Local 506 application. In our view, the Labourers, Local 506 application pur­suant to section 1(4) should succeed.

Once again we note that if the Labourers, Local 506 application was a "stand-alone" application brought in the absence of the Bricklayers, Local 1 existing bargaining rights or concurrent section 1(4) application, the Board would grant a section 1(4) application in order to create a viable bargaining unit within this integrated work force, prevent the undue fragmentation of employees, and prevent the possible erosion of bargaining rights. Although the presence of the Bricklayers, Local 1 existing bargaining rights was a fac­tor considered by the Board in determining whether to exercise our discre­tion, in the circumstances of this case we are of the view that those existing bargaining rights can and are more appropriately dealt with when we turn to the other issues raised by the Labourers, Local 506 application for certification.

In the result therefore, we declare that for purposes of the Labour Relations Act, and only in respect of its relations with Labourers, Local 506 and each of the affiliated bargaining agents of the designated employee bargaining agency, namely the Labourers' International Union of North America and the Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council, Gottcon Contractors Limited, Gottardo Properties Lim­ited, Gottardo Contracting (1980) Inc. Gottardo Contracting Co. Limited, Gottardo Holdings Company Ltd., Gottardo Management Limited, and Gottardo Corporation constitute one common employer.

2. After rendering this oral ruling the Board continued to deal with a number of issues arising out of the application for certification filed by the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506. The hearing was not concluded on July 11, 1989 and as result the Board set the following days for a continuation of this hearing; September 21, 1989, November 1, 2 and 9, 1989. At the continuation of the hearing the Board will hear the evidence and representations of the parties in respect of any and all matters arising out of the application for certification filed by Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 including the status of the inter­vener, the description and composition of the bargaining unit, and the effect if any of the collective agreement between the Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto and The Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada, Local 1.