Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1990] OLRB Rep. February 128
2092-89-U John Brodhagen, Complainant v. Teamsters Local Union 938, Respondent v. C.T. Transport, Division of McKinlay Transport Ltd., Intervener
BEFORE: Michael Bendel, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: John Brodhagen for the complainant; Linda Huebscher and Ken Hoskings for the respondent; Mona V. Anis and Michael Davies for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 9, 1990
1This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, in which it is alleged that the respondent violated section 68 of the Act. After hearing the parties, I gave a brief oral ruling, dismissing the complaint, and undertook to issue a decision in writing.
2Both the respondent and the intervener raised a jurisdictional question by way of preliminary objection. They stated that the intervener's business, in which the complainant was employed, was international and interprovincial trucking. As such, they claimed, the Ontario Labour Relations Act does not apply to this dispute about the quality of the representation given to the complainant by the respondent.
3No evidence was presented, but all of the parties admitted certain facts, including the following:
(a) the intervener, headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario, operated a trucking business in which the complainant was employed;
(b) the intervener's trucking business performed regular runs into other provinces and into the United States;
(c) the parties were aware of no certification of the respondent as bargaining agent for the intervener's employees by any labour relations board;
(d) a Quebec-based local of the Teamsters Union, which was a party to the same collective agreement as the one applicable to the complainant, was certified as bargaining agent for the intervener's employees in Dorval, Quebec, by the Canada Labour Relations Board;
(e) in 1979, an illegal strike of employees of McKinlay Transport was settled before the Canada Labour Relations Board, without any of the parties challenging that Board's jurisdiction; and
(f) the current collective agreement, which expires in 1991, was arrived at with the assistance of the conciliation services of the Canada Department of Labour.
4There is nothing in the facts of this case, in my view, to suggest that the intervener is subject to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The brief description of the intervener's business set out above would seem to be sufficient for a finding that it is subject to the Canada Labour Code. The parties have conducted their affairs on this assumption. In the absence of some evidence or argument on the part of the complainant that would suggest a contrary result, I have no alternative but to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.