Millwright District Council of Ontario v. Commonwealth Construction Company, 1991 CanLII 6188

[1991] OLRB Rep. June 742

2664-89-JD Millwright District Council of Ontario, on its own behalf and on behalf of its Local 1425, Complainant v. Commonwealth Construction Company; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 508, Respondents

BEFORE: Louisa M. Davie, Vice-Chair, and Board Members D. A. MacDonald and H. Kobryn.

APPEARANCES: David Watson for the applicant; Lawrence C. Arnold and Marcel Jolie for the respondent.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 27, 1991

1. This is a jurisdictional dispute complaint filed pursuant to section 91 of the Labour Relations Act ("the Act"). For ease of reference the parties to this complaint will be referred to as the "Millwrights", "Commonwealth Construction", and "the U.A.".

2. This matter came on for hearing before this panel of the Board after a pre-hearing conference had been conducted. Although the parties were able to agree upon some matters as evidenced in the pre-hearing conference memorandum, they were unable to agree upon the geographic scope of the area past practice which is relevant and which the Board ought to admit in its adjudication of this complaint.

3. The parties requested that the Board rule upon the appropriate scope of the area past practice evidence as a preliminary matter. The parties agreed that this panel is not seized with hearing the merits of the complaint.

4. The parties are partially agreed on the description of the work in dispute. They are agreed that the work in dispute was performed on a paper making machine at St. Mary's Paper Mill in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The extent of their disagreement concerning the description of the work in dispute is indicated by the wording in the brackets in the following description.

all work in connection with the removal and installation or reinstallation of (condensate), syphons, including the syphon tubes inside the dryer drums, and the rotary (steam) pressure joints in connection with the dryer rolls (and the suppun bracket for same) on the papermaking machine.

5. The parties have agreed that the relevant employer past practice evidence is geographically limited to the employer's practice in the Province of Ontario.

Submissions of the Parties

6. Counsel for the Millwrights has taken alternate positions with respect to the parameters of the geographic scope of the area past practice evidence. Initially, the Millwrights sought to limit the area past practice evidence to evidence of jobs within Board area 21, the Board area in which the work in dispute is situate.

7. However, as the U.A. desires to introduce evidence of a job which was performed in 1982 in Iroquois Falls (which is within Board area 19) the Millwrights are content to have the area past practice evidence include Board area 21 and 19 and the "white area" adjacent to those Board areas. The Millwrights take the position that the U.A should not be able to introduce evidence of the Iroquois Falls projects under the guise of the "skill and training" criterion rather than the "area past practice" criterion (as is anticipated) without affording the Millwrights an opportunity to adduce their own evidence with respect to the Iroquois Falls job notwithstanding the fact that the job was performed outside Board area 21. The Millwrights want to include the "white area" in order to rely upon, inter alia, a job performed at the E.B. Eddy Mill in Espanola which is situate in the white area just outside Board area 21.

8. The Millwrights argue that there is evidence of similar work on similar machines within the immediate area of the project at which the work in dispute was performed. It is asserted that in the past the Board has consistently limited the scope of area past practice evidence to the proximate area where the dispute arose. Conversely, the Board has consistently excluded evidence of practice not in the proximate area of the work in dispute. (See for example Urban Consolidated Construction Corporation Ltd., [1977] OLRB Rep. Feb. 41, Ontario Hydro, [1983] OLRB Rep. June 932, Sirotek Contractors Limited, 1967 OLRB Rep. Aug. 479, Beer Precast Concrete Limited, 1970 OLRB Rep. Aug. 610, Long Branch Window and Metal Cleaning, [1972] OLRB Rep. Feb. 129, Ilena Construction Company Limited, [1974] OLRB Rep. Nov. 775, K-Line Maintenance. OLRB [1979] Rep. Dec. 1185, Brunswick Drywall Limited, [1982] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1143, Acco Canadian Material Handling, [1990] OLRB Rep. Sept. 915.)

9. The substance of the submissions by counsel for the Millwrights was that in the adjudication of jurisdictional dispute complaints evidence with respect to the past practice criterion inevitably takes up a significant amount of the parties' time and money both in preparation for and in presentation of the case. Similarly, the Board must also set aside numerous hearing days to consider that evidence in order to adjudicate upon the complaint. The limitation of past practice evidence to a local board area balances the various interest of the parties to the dispute (and the Board) to have the matter determined in a timely, expeditious and cost efficient fashion. Only evidence which is relevant to the practice within a particular geographic region is heard because to extend the evidence beyond such geographic parameters would result in even lengthier hearings where the evidence of past practice would become protracted. Both time and expense therefore militate against an expanded geographic area.

10. Counsel for the Millwrights asserted that section 91 authorizes the Board to inquire into jurisdictional disputes over "particular work". Unlike adjudication pursuant to section 150 of the Act to determine the sector in which work is performed, the adjudication of jurisdictional disputes is neither intended to, nor does it in fact, achieve a uniform or consistent practice with respect to the assignment of work. Counsel argues that section 91 of the Act is a method by which trade unions and employers can resolve disputes over trade jurisdiction without resorting to self help remedies. Section 91 is a means of securing industrial peace within a particular area. Counsel noted that both the nature of disputes and the means for resolving such disputes may vary from area to area. As a result the remedial relief which the Board typically grants in section 91 disputes is restricted to the area where the dispute arose. As declaratory remedial relief is limited to a specified geographic area, the evidence of area past practice should be similarly limited. He asserts that it would be unfair to bind other areas of the province with the resolution of the jurisdictional dispute when the assignment of the work in dispute in those areas is not or has not been controversial.

11. Counsel argued that past practice evidence which extends beyond a local geographic region or area has only been admitted where there have been extenuating circumstances. He cites Foster Wheeler, [1989] OLRB Rep. Feb. 128 as one such circumstance and notes the unique nature of the work in that instance. He also acknowledges that extensive area past practice evidence has been admitted in jurisdictional dispute complaints outside the construction industry in circumstances where the nature of the "industry" is such that evidence extending beyond the local geographic area is warranted. He cites the line of "newspaper cases" as an example. See for example The Kingston-Whig Standard Company Limited, [1972] OLRB Rep. Nov. 959, Toronto Star Newspapers, [1980] OLRB Rep. April 565 and also Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., [1983] OLRB Rep. Feb. 194.

12. Counsel argues that these cases are not applicable. In this instance the "industry" is the construction industry which has historically been organized on a localized area basis. As a result "industry practice" and "area past practice" are synonymous. He submits also that there are no extenuating circumstances which should compel the Board to depart from its usual practice of restricting past practice evidence to the proximate area where the dispute arose.

13. The U.A. asserts that the appropriate and relevant geographic area for past practice evidence is the Province of Ontario.

14. Counsel for the U.A. notes that the St. Mary's Paper Mill is the only mill in Board Area 21. He asserts that the work in dispute is specifically defined work, performed on a specific part of a paper making machine in a paper mill. He argues that these two factors in particular favour a ruling that evidence of past practice throughout the Province of Ontario is relevant to the proper adjudication of this dispute.

15. Counsel for the U.A. submits that although in jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry past practice evidence is usually restricted to a single board area, this is not always the case. In appropriate instances, because of extenuating circumstances, the Board has limited past practice evidence to an area as small as a city (see Brunswick Drywall Limited, supra or as extended as the Province of Ontario. (See Foster-Wheeler, supra) or the territorial jurisdiction of the trade unions involved in the dispute. (See Tilechem Limited, [1982] OLRB Rep. July 1074.

16. Counsel submits that given the paucity of evidence that is available in Board Area 21 because the only paper mill in that Board Area is the St. Mary's Paper Mill at Sault Ste. Marie and in view of the fact that the work in dispute is discreet and can only be performed on a papermaking machine in a paper mill, past practice evidence throughout the Province of Ontario is appropriate. He argues that there are a limited number of paper mills and these specific machines throughout the province. He submits that there is no difference between the machines or the performance of the work in dispute whether the paper mill is located in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Toronto, Thorold or Trenton. There is therefore no valid reason for distinguishing between the areas of the province and limiting evidence only to a particular geographic region such as a local board area.

17. Counsel for the U.A. submits that there is a difference between "industry practice" and "area practice" and a difference between what he termed as "generic" construction work and particular or specialized construction work of the type involved in this jurisdictional dispute. It was argued that where the work in dispute is or can be performed on virtually every construction site in the province, the past practice evidence should be limited to the local board area. That would recognize the "industry practice" of the "construction industry" and in such instances "industry practice" and "area practice" are in fact synonymous.

18. On the other hand where performance of the work in dispute is confined to a particular type of work at a particular type of construction project the "industry practice" involved is only a limited portion of the construction industry. In those instances, the Board should depart from the norm in the adjudication of the jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry and permit past practice evidence within that limited construction industry on a much broader "area" basis. Counsel urged us to adopt the "industrial" or "non-construction industry" practice and admit evidence of past practice evidence throughout the province. In support counsel cites Foster Wheeler, supra, and the "Newspaper cases", supra.

19. In support of his assertion that "industry practice" and "area practice" may be different, counsel referred to Canada Millwrights Limited, [1967] OLRB Rep. May 195. In that decision the Board first set out the criteria which the Board considers in determining a jurisdictional complaint:

6. Briefly then, the jurisdiction of the trade unions asserting conflicting claims as set out in their constitutions or as incorporated in and forming part of any collective agreements between themselves and the employer who is doing the work in dispute, obviously would be a factor taken into account by the Board. Any written agreements or even informal understandings between the disputing unions as to the respective areas of their work jurisdiction also would be a relevant consideration. As well, rulings, awards or decisions made by authorized individuals or tribunals relating to the same or a similar type of work assignment dispute might have an influence on the Board's determination, as would the past practice in assigning the work in question whether it be in an area or an industry. Finally, the nature of the work, the skills involved, safety, efficiency and economy in the performance of the work are factors that may be of significance.

[emphasis added]

20. Thereafter, in Fraser Brace Engineering Co. Ltd., supra, the Board noted:

48. Counsel for all parties asked the Board to give further guidance as to the factors which it considers relevant in making its determinations in jurisdictional disputes. Most of the factors which the Board takes into account are set out in the Canada Millwrights Limited Case, O.L.R.B. Monthly Report, May 1967, p. 195. The relative importance of these various factors has been indicated in subsequent decisions. The content of the instant decision we hope affords some guidance to the parties. We would state, however, that unless there are extenuating circumstances, the relevant area practice is the area where the dispute arose.

[emphasis added]

21. Counsel argued that these and subsequent cases have recognized that in certain circumstances a limitation of past practice evidence to a local board area is not appropriate.

Decision

22. We agree that there is a difference between "industry" past practice and "area" past practice. In our view, "area" past practice refers to the past practice in a particular geographic area. Through the use of past practice evidence the parties provide evidence as to how other employers have assigned the work in dispute in a particular geographic area determined to be relevant.

23. A review of the cases indicates that "industry" practice generally refers to the construction industry. However, the Act itself and the trade unions and employers engaged in the construction industry have recognized that the construction industry has a number of different "divisions" or "sectors" as determined by "work characteristics". (See section 117(e) of the Act). Within the construction industry there may be a different "industry practice" within these various sectors. A review of the jurisdictional dispute decisions rendered by the Board indicate that it has been generally accepted (or at least not addressed in the decisions or disputed by the parties) that in the adjudication of jurisdictional dispute complaints the Board should limit the industry practice evidence to that sector or division of the construction industry in which the dispute arose. In so doing the Board and the parties implicitly acknowledge that the history of organizing in the construction industry and the work jurisdiction claimed by the trades may vary from sector to sector.

24. In K-Line Maintenance and Construction Ltd., supra, the Board noted at page 1190:

19. The evidence before the Board establishes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers recognizes that there is a line of demarcation between work performed outside property lines and work performed inside property lines. The work in dispute was performed outside property lines and in the Clement & Bellmore Construction Limited case, [1967] OLRB Rep. August 464, the Board recognized such a distinction.

20. The appropriate area practice for the Board to consider is the work performed outside property lines and the work performed by utilities on their own properties. The work performed inside property lines is not considered by the Board in this complaint. The Board makes this distinction on the basis that work performed inside property lines has been treated differently by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, K-Line and other electrical contractors who are members of the Electrical Contractors Association of Toronto. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the work in dispute involves work performed on public property in conjunction with street lighting which is located on public property.

(See also for example Urban Consolidated Construction Corporation Ltd., supra, where at page 47, paragraph 31 the Board explicitly refers to the area practice in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry).

25. Similarly in a number of instance where the issue has been specifically addressed it has been necessary to adjudicate an issue amongst the parties with respect to the sector in which the disputed work was performed before adjudicating upon the merits of a jurisdictional dispute complaint which had been filed. Thus, in Dufferin Construction Co., [1988] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1164 at page 166 the Board stated:

8. As the Board has noted above, the parties agree that a sector determination is needed with respect to the work which is central to the issues in all three files. There is no dispute that the issue impacts on the criteria of collective bargaining relationships and area past practice which are considerations in resolving jurisdiction disputes. In the Board's view, resolution of the sector dispute is likely to impact on the relevance of the criteria of employer preference and employer past practice as well. It is the Board's further view, therefore, that, in all of the circumstances of these proceedings, it is necessary for the Board to decide the issue of whether the work in dispute in the two grievance referrals and the jurisdiction complaint comes within the ICI sector of the construction industry prior to considering any other issue relevant to the two grievance referrals and before considering the section 91 complaint.

26. In Armbro Materials and Construction Ltd., [1986] OLRB Rep. May 579 the Board also stated:

7. The second preliminary issue argued before us pertains to area practice. The complainant contends that the relevant area practice to be considered in the hearing of the merits of this complaint is the practice in Board Area 18 with respect to the installation of site services on industrial, commercial and institutional ("ICI") projects. The complainant further contends that no limit should be placed on how far back in time such evidence may go. In this regard, the complainant seeks to adduce evidence "going back to the 1940's". Counsel for Local 183, on the other hand, contends that the work in dispute is sewer and watermain work, and seeks to rely on area practice in respect of such work without regard to whether it was performed in connection with a residential project, a road, an industrial plant, or an electrical power system project. It is his position that the sewers and watermains sector cuts across the other sectors listed in section 117(e) of the Act, and that work in that sector is defined by the tasks associated with sewer and watermain construction, not by the location in which it is being constructed. He further contends that it would be an abuse of the Board's process to permit evidence to be adduced concerning area practice which goes back more than five or ten years at the most.

9…….

It is evident to us from the submissions of the parties and the contents of their pre-hearing briefs that in order to resolve the matters in dispute between the parties, including the second and third "preliminary issues" set forth above and the merits of this jurisdictional complaint, it will be necessary for the Board to determine whether the work in dispute is within the ICI sector, as contended by the complainant, or within the sewers and watermains sector, as contended by the respondents. We are further of the view that the issue of whether that work comes within the ICI sector should be determined under section 150 of the Act prior to the determination of any other issues relevant to this complaint, including the two aforementioned "preliminary issues In our view, this approach is likely to prove to be the most expeditious manner of proceeding, since the determination of that matter will assist in determining the relevant area practice and the applicability of the respondents' collective agreement, and may also be of considerable assistance to the parties in resolving or narrowing this complaint.

See also Steen Contractors Ltd., [1987] OLRB Rep. Jan. 137 at 138.

27. In our view, these cases confirm the proposition that in the construction industry as a whole there may be a difference in trade jurisdiction claimed by any trade union from one sector to another sector. We have therefore concluded that the criterion "industry" practice when used in the context of a jurisdictional dispute complaint in the construction industry refers to the practice within that particular sector of the construction industry in which the dispute arose. In our view, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances or compelling reasons to the contrary, industry practice should be limited to the sector in which the work in dispute arose.

28. There is no dispute that in this complaint the work in dispute falls within the ICI sector of the construction industry. Accordingly, we have determined that the industry practice evidence should be limited to that sector.

29. The parties disagree about whether the work can only be performed on a paper-making machine. The U.A. assert that is the case while the Millwrights contend that the work is not so technologically limited but is or can be performed on other types of machines. In the circumstances we consider it inappropriate to further refine or limit the "industry practice" to the work in dispute when performed on a paper-making machine in a paper-making mill.

30. We do however consider that only evidence of the work in dispute on the same or similar type of machinery is relevant. Section 91 authorizes the Board to inquire into a complaint involving the assignment of "particular work" and not "work" in the abstract. Evidence must therefore relate to the work in dispute. In this regard we concur with the decision of the Board in Acco Canadian Material Handling, supra, where the Board stated:

5. Past practice evidence is only relevant to deciding the proper assignment of work in dispute if it can be tied in with the actual work in dispute. At the same time, the scope of past practice evidence should not be so narrow as to interfere with a party's full opportunity to present its evidence and make its submissions on the issue of the proper assignment. That raises the question of where is the sensible place to draw the line as to the past practice evidence to be heard. In the instant proceeding, in the Board's view, limiting past practice evidence to the two types of conveyor systems was that place. This is because the two systems include a sufficient variety of conveyors which might arguably be included in the term "monorail conveyor" so as to allow the parties full opportunity to present their evidence and make their submissions respecting the conclusions to be drawn by the Board from past practice evidence.

31. Next we turn to the geographic parameters of the area past practice.

32. The primary reason why the Board limits past practice evidence to a particular geographic region which coincides with a Board area is to take into account the history of organizing in the construction industry and the work jurisdictions claimed by the craft trade unions as a result of that organization.

33. Historically, local trade unions organized employees in those geographic areas for which they had been granted territorial jurisdiction by their parent international. In turn, employers within the industry also organized their associations on a local level by forming a "Builders Exchange" or other "association" which would engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the employer contractors in the area with the local union. The geographic areas created by the Board in large part mirror the traditionally established and recognized geographic jurisdictions of the local unions. They were created after hearings about the matter had been conducted with interested and affected parties.

34. Organizing on a local level impacted on the trade jurisdiction claimed and/or asserted by local trade unions from one geographic area to another. The Board's limitation of past practice evidence to the geographic board area therefore recognized and accommodated the fact that trade jurisdiction may vary from one geographic region to another. Thus, for example, the geographically limited past practice evidence in one jurisdictional dispute complaint allowed the Board to consider and accommodate the trade jurisdiction of Bricklayers over drywall taping in the Kingston area serviced by Local 10 of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen although the Bricklayers Union did not assert jurisdiction over drywall taping in any other area in the province. (See Brunswick Drywall, supra). Similarly, the limitation of past practice evidence to a specific geographic board area has enabled the Board to take into account the history of organization within the "forming industry" where the traditional lines of demarcation between the crafts has become blurred. (See for example the history of the form work council agreement referred to in Urban Consolidated Construction Corporation Ltd., supra at paragraphs 9,10 and 11.)

35. Given the unique nature of the construction industry and the organization (by both employers and trade unions) for collective bargaining purposes within that industry on a local geographic basis, evidence of past practice in other local geographic areas is generally not relevant. It could perhaps be said that past practice evidence in other local areas is "arguably" relevant because it deals with what loosely may be termed as "similar facts". That is true however of evidence of almost any construction project in the province and perhaps beyond.

36. In jurisdictional dispute complaints in the construction industry past practice evidence is almost limitless. Taken to its logical extreme, any party could seek to introduce viva voce evidence of each and every construction project at which the work in dispute or work arguably analogous to the work in dispute had been performed. The Board must draw a sensible line of what is relevant to the proper adjudication of the issues in dispute somewhere.

37. The statutory provisions which govern the admission of evidence by the Board (see for example sections 102(13) and 103(2(c) of the Act and section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act) and the rules of natural justice compel the Board to hear relevant evidence. These statutory provisions however do not require the Board to hear evidence which is merely "arguably relevant" especially where the limited value of that evidence is far outweighed by the time and expense which would occur if the parties were to embark on adducing such additional evidence which is only collateral to the issues in dispute.

38. The value of section 91 as a means of achieving industrial peace in the construction industry is seriously undermined when the resolution of jurisdictional dispute complaints take months or even years of expensive litigation to resolve. In order for section 91 to be an effective alternative to jurisdictional work stoppages, jurisdictional dispute complaints before the Board should not become costly and lengthy adjudicative proceedings. The resolution of jurisdictional dispute complaints will become even lengthier and more costly if the parties and the Board embark on these collateral avenues - avenues of evidence which ultimately can have little, if any, impact upon the issue in dispute before the Board.

39. If the area practice is not different from one geographic board area to another the factors of cost and expedition militate against the admission of unduly repetitious evidence from other parts of the province which "confirm" the local area past practice. The value of such evidence in such instances is far outweighed by the rights of the parties to have the dispute resolved in a less costly more expeditious fashion. In that instance evidence of past practice is, at best, collateral to the issue before the Board which is the assignment of particular work in a particular geographic location.

40. If the area past practice is different in the geographic board area in which the dispute arose it is this very difference which supports limiting the past practice evidence to the local board area. In light of the history of organization of the trade union(s) at a local level, evidence of how other locals and/or other contractors in other areas have dealt with the disputed work assignment is not relevant. That type of evidence doesn't address the issue in dispute before the Board namely how have the local trade unions (and local contractors) organized and/or assigned and claimed! asserted trade jurisdiction over the work in dispute. It makes little labour relation sense "to disturb what [may be] a successful and long-lived work jurisdiction the exercise of which has caused no industrial unrest." (See Brunswick Drywall, supra at page 1146) merely because a local trade union has established a trade jurisdiction which may, at first blush, appear to be anomalous.

41. For these reasons we are of the view that the Board should not lightly depart from its general practice to limit past practice evidence to the area where the dispute arose.

42. We must be cognizant however that special circumstances may warrant a particular panel of the Board from departing from this general "rule" that past practice evidence be limited to a board area. Although the Board's general rules and policies provide a measure of guidance, certainty and stability in the labour relations community, its rules and policies are not, and cannot be, "carved in stone". The Board must be flexible and responsive to extenuating circumstances which require a departure from its usual or "normal" policies.

43. We view this case as consisting of such special or extenuating circumstances for two reasons.

44. The work in dispute is somewhat unique. It is very particular work performed, at best, on a limited number or type of machine. The work is not common place and the parties are agreed that, if past practice evidence is limited to Board area 21 the only evidence available is the past practice at the St. Mary's Paper Mill in Sault Ste. Marie. Although area past practice is only one factor in determining a work assignment, it is undoubtedly an important one. In our view, the paucity of past practice evidence in Board area 21 warrants an expanded geographic scope. In order to properly adjudicate upon this complaint and provide the parties with full opportunity to make their submissions with respect to the proper assignment, the Board and the parties should have the benefit of evidence as to how the same or similar work has been assigned in a broader geographic area.

45. Equally important however is the fact that the geographic jurisdictions of the two local unions directly involved in this complaint are not congruent with either the Board area or each other.

46. The geographic jurisdiction of the Millwrights consists generally of Board areas 17, 19 and 21 and the white areas adjacent thereto. The geographic jurisdiction of the U.A. on the other hand consists essentially of a part of Board area 21 and a portion of Board area 22. The area where the two unions overlap is only a portion of their total geographic jurisdiction.

47. Having regard to the fact that trade union organization within the construction industry has traditionally occurred at a local level, and the consequent claims over work jurisdictions which have developed in local geographic areas as a result of that organization, we consider it appropriate and relevant that past practice evidence include work assignments within the geographic area over which each local has jurisdiction. In that way the parties can adduce relevant evidence regarding their approach to or claim over similar work within "their" geographic jurisdiction in the past.

48. Having regard to,

(1) the territorial jurisdiction of the two local unions directly involved in this complaint (and therefore allowing for the fact that the history of organizing and the consequent claims over work jurisdictions may vary from area to area), and

(2) the cost and delay which would result if the Board permitted "arguably relevant" which, in the circumstances can only be collateral to the issues in dispute to be adduced,

we are of the view that area past practice should be restricted to evidence of past practice in Board areas 17, 19, 21 and 22 and the "white area" in between. That geographic region will give the parties a number of projects upon which each can adduce evidence, and will provide both the parties and the Board with a broader, more complete picture of past practice than would be available if evidence were limited to Board area 21. At the same time such a geographic limitation will ensure that the length and cost of these proceedings are not increased by the admission of repetitive or irrelevant evidence of practice in areas that are geographically far removed from the work in dispute.

49. The parties have filed certain job lists with the Board. They have not however had an opportunity to review those job lists in light of this ruling by the Board with respect to the geographic scope of area past practice evidence. There are also some items raised in the pre-hearing memorandum about which parties were to advise the Board and each other such as, for example whether the trade unions will be relying upon their respective constitutions.

50. Under the circumstances the parties are directed to meet with each other in advance of the hearing dates which are to be scheduled to hear the merits of this complaint to ensure compliance with the undertakings and directions referred to in the pre-hearing conference memorandum. The parties are further directed to review the job lists which have been filed and determine which of the jobs referred to on those lists fall within the geographic parameters of our ruling herein. With respect to those jobs upon which the parties will rely which fall within the parameters of our ruling herein the parties must provide the name of the project, its location, the name of the owner and/or general contractor, a brief description of the work about which evidence is to be called, the name of the contractor who performed the work, the identity of the trade or trades used to perform it and when it was performed.

51. At the continuation of the hearing of the merits of this complaint the parties must be prepared to state their position in respect of the information provided on the job lists, that is to say the parties must be prepared to indicate either their agreement or disagreement with the information. In the event any party disagrees with the information provided by another party, that party must be prepared to specify the extent of their disagreement with such information, and the evidence it has to refute such information or otherwise support its position. The Board anticipates that the length of the hearing required to adjudicate upon this complaint may be reduced if these matters are addressed at the commencement of the hearing.

52. The Registrar is directed to schedule further hearing dates in consultation with the parties.