Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. R. R. Projects Inc., 1992 CanLII 6357

[1992] OLRB Rep. June 731

2373-91-R; 2374-91-R Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brother­hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant V. R. R. Projects Inc., Golden Arm Flooring Inc., Respondents

BEFORE: N. B. Satterfield, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and R. R. Montague.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 16, 1992

1. For reasons given below, the names of the respondents in these applications have been amended to "R. R. Projects Inc. and Golden Arm Flooring Inc."

2. File No. 2373-91-R is an application made under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Rela­tions Act. File No. 2374-91-R is an application made under section 64 [formerly section 631 of the Act. Both applications, as originally made, named as respondents R.R. Projects Inc.; Golden Arms Construction; and, Randy's Floor and Windows Covering and Accessories. The applicant later requested that both applications be amended by adding Golden Arm Flooring Inc. as a respondent and by adding it to the request for relief in each application. During the course of the proceedings, Riad (Randy) Wehbe, who represented R.R. Projects Inc. at the hearing, admitted that Golden Arms Construction and Randy's Floor and Windows Covering and Accessories were unicorporated operating divisions of R. R. Projects Inc. and were bound together with it to the Provincial Collective Agreement between the Carpenters Employer Bargaining Agency and the Ontario Provincial Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America effec­tive May 1,1990 to April 30, 1992 ("the Agreement"). The applicant also is bound to the Agree­ment. Based on that undertaking and with the consent of the other parties, the applicant requested leave to withdraw the applications insofar as they related to the two divisions. Accordingly, the Board directed that the applications made under subsection 1(4) and section 64 of the Act be with­drawn insofar as they relate to Golden Arms Construction and Randy's Floor and Windows Cover­ing and Accessories.

3. The applicant did not pursue in final argument the application for relief under section 64 of the Act and that application is dismissed. Accordingly, the remainder of this decision deals only with the application under subsection 1(4) of the Act.

4. For ease of reference, the Board will refer to the Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America as "the applicant" or "Local 27"; to R.R. Projects Inc. as "Projects" and to Golden Arm Flooring Inc. as "Flooring".

5. Projects' business is the supply and installation of floor coverings. Randy Wehbe's wife Randa Wehbe is the sole shareholder and director of Projects, and its President. She prepares its payroll and does its bookkeeping. Randy Wehbe runs Projects' jobs. His employment with Projects provides his only source of income. He is not paid a salary. He draws whatever he needs and, since his wife is President, he feels free to take whatever draw he wants. Projects has been in the resilient flooring contracting business since the mid-1980's. Local 27 has been the exclusive bar­gaining agent for Projects' employees who install floor coverings since January 17, 1991.

6. Randa Wehbe's brother, Nick El-Eid, formed Flooring in June, 1991. It was incorpo­rated June 13, 1991. Its objects include contracting for the supply and installation of resilient floor­ing in the industrial, commercial and institutional ("ICI") sector of the construction industry. El­Eid is Flooring's sole shareholder, director and officer. He keeps its books and records. He formed Flooring for the specific purpose of performing a flooring contract on Holy Angels Catholic School in Toronto for Bradscot Construction Limited. It was the first large job which El-Eid had bid and won. El-Eid had worked for Projects for approximately two and one-half years prior to forming Flooring. According to Randy Wehbe, everyone knew El-Eid as an employee of Projects. Wehbe also described their families as being very close; that is, El-Eid, his sister Randa Wehbe, their par­ents, Randy Wehbe and his family.

7. The developments leading to these applications began in August 1991. At that times Projects had a contract from Bradscot, the general contractor on a project at Rosedale Heights Public School in Richmond Hill to supply and install floor covering. El-Eid was engaged by Brad-scot to repair the cement finishing of the floors which were to be covered under Projects' contract. Bradscot supplied the materials and El-Eid supplied the labour and performed the work on a piece work basis. He had two employees working on the job besides working himself. While Projects was on the Rosedale project, Wehbe was advised by Torcom Construction that Projects was the successful bidder on a flooring project at St. Mary's Catholic School. Wehbe declined to have Projects enter into a contract with Torcom, citing financial problems. According to Wehbe, when Torcom asked him to recommend someone else, for the job, it was natural that he should refer his "nearest relative", El-Eid. El-Eid negotiated a contract for Flooring with Torcom which Wehbe states was for a substantially lower price than Projects had bid. Wehbe testified also that, because of Projects' unspecified financial problems, he did not intend to have Projects' do anymore busi­ness after Rosedale Heights until the problems were resolved. In the meantime he would refer jobs to El-Eid and would continue to do so in the future if he considered a job to be too small or to have insufficient profit in it for Projects.

8. Flooring also had been the successful bidder to Bradscot for a job on the Holy Angels Catholic School in Etobicoke to install a terrazzo floor and vinyl tile flooring. El-Eid testified that he negotiated a contract for Flooring with Bradscot in the spring of 1991, although the Board notes that a formal contract bears the date October 29, 1991, by which time the job was completed or close to being completed. El-Eid was Flooring's only employee when the job was due to begin and needed employees for both school jobs. The terrazzo floor work was sub-contracted to another contractor and, in any event, is not at issue under the collective agreement to which Flooring would become bound were the application to succeed. El-Eid hired one employee for Flooring, then tried to borrow some of Projects' employees. He was unable to make a deal with them and ended up having Projects supply the additional labour. Flooring was to reimburse Projects for the wages and benefits which Projects paid to those employees. There was no written contract between Projects and Flooring concerning this arrangement.

9. Three of Projects' resilient floor installers worked under the arrangement on the two schools: Sean Reilly, Pompeo Leggieri and Ron Pieroni. Reilly and Leggieri testified in these pro­ceedings. Wehbe sent Reilly and Leggieri to start the job at Holy Angels, then, after a couple of days, he sent them to St. Mary's with instructions to lay out the sheet vinyl and wait for him to bring a roller to the job. Wehbe came to the job with their pay cheques, bringing the roller and blue prints for the job as well. He told Leggieri to take some material and the roller from his car into the school, then Reilly and Wehbe reviewed the prints for the job. Wehbe also spoke to Tor­com's superintendent about the cafeteria flooring and when it was to be installed. Reilly and Leggi­en were told by Wehbe to return to Holy Angels when they had finished laying the sheet vinyl flooring. They did so the same day. After that, they transferred regularly between the two jobs for the next two weeks.

10. Wehbe was on the Holy Angels job twice while Reilly worked on it. He came once to pick up their time sheets and once to deliver their pay cheques. During the first visit Reilly observed Wehbe arguing about the terrazzo floor with Bradscot's superintendent and speaking to the persons doing the job. On his second visit, Wehbe came with El-Eid and brought some base cement needed for the job. Leggiere testified that he saw Wehbe on the job three times including the first day on the job.

11. Wehbe and his wife were out of Canada from September 15th until November 6th. Before Wehbe's departure, he had sent some of his employees who were working on St. Mary's School to complete some deficiencies on the Rosedale Heights School. He called them for that work as it arose. The rest of the time, as he put it during cross-examination, "they were free to work for Flooring on the St. Mary's job". He also left instructions with Reilly to complete other deficiencies while he was away as soon as the materials were available. El-Eid told Reilly during Wehbe's absence that Bradscot's superintendent was calling him all of the time and asking him when Projects' work on the Rosedale Heights job was going to be completed. Wehbe had arranged with EI-Eid and another relative to watch for the delivery of the material and to advise Reilly. When the time came, El-Eid brought the materials to the St. Mary's job where Reilly was working, instructed him to go the next morning to the Rosedale Heights School, install the materials and return to the St. Mary's job as soon as he was finished. Reilly returned to the St. Mary's job by noon the same day. He was on the Rosedale Heights job two other times as well. El-Eid stated that he had instructed Reilly to do the deficiency work on his own time.

12. Reilly believes that his pay for the half day on the Rosedale Heights job was included in his pay for the St. Mary's job. He was paid $1100. for some other deficiency work on the Rosedale Heights job by a cheque from Flooring. El-Eid said that he chose to do that because the Wehbe's were out of the country and was reimbursed by Projects for the payment. Neither respondent pro­duced any documentary evidence of reimbursement. El-Eid testified that Flooring reimbursed Projects in full for the cost of wages and benefits of Projects' employees who worked on the Holy Angels job for Flooring. Documentary evidence compiled by El-Eid shows that the wages and ben­efits paid to the three employees was substantially greater than $6,000. However, documentary evidence of repayment accounts only for $6,000, including $2,000 paid by Flooring to Finer Craft, a creditor of Projects. For the same reason, he paid Projects' employees who were working on his St. Mary's School job with money orders purchased by Flooring, accompanied by a statement of deductions from Projects. El-Eid testified that he did it this way so that they would be paid and it did not matter to him whether he paid them directly or reimbursed Projects for their wages, as he had done on the Holy Angels School. The money order in exhibit for payment to Reilly for work performed on St. Mary's School is dated November 14th, more than one week after the Wehbe's had returned from their trip. El-Eid testified that Flooring reimbursed Projects in full for the cost of wages and benefits of Projects' employees who worked on the Holy Angels job for Flooring. Documentary evidence compiled by El-Eid shows that the wages and benefits paid to the three employees was substantially greater than $6,000. However, documentary evidence of repayment accounts only for $6,000, including $2,000 paid by Flooring to Finer Craft, a creditor of Projects.

13. Reilly and two other employees working for Projects performed work at Wehbe's request on the Rosedale Heights job on terms different than those called for by the Agreement. When it was getting close to school opening, he asked them to work overtime, but at their normal rate of pay because he could not afford to pay the overtime rate. They agreed to do so, and did work on condition that no deductions be made from their pay. On another occasion, after Reilly had been laid off following completion of the St. Mary's school job, at Wehbe's request, he agreed to complete some unfinished work for cash payment on the Rosedale Heights school job.

14. Wehbe and El-Eid both testified that a resilient flooring contractor needed very little equipment. A vehicle and a roller were the essentials. Employees supplied their own tools. Projects owned a van, roller, freight dolly and Hilte gun. Flooring owned a roller. EI-Eid bor­rowed Projects' van when he needed a vehicle, or used a vehicle owned by his parents or the Weh­bes. The roller which Wehbe delivered to the St. Mary's job the first day belonged to Flooring and had been borrowed by Projects after its roller was stolen. El-Eid also borrowed Projects' Hilte gun from time to time.

15. Projects and Flooring use the same firm of solicitors for legal work and the same accountant. The accountant incorporated Floorings for El-Eid. According to Wehbe, the solicitors and accountant are used as well by members of his family and the El-Eid family.

16. Subsection 1(4) of the Act reads as follows:

1-(4) Where, in the opinion of the Board, associated or related activities or businesses are car­ried on, whether or not simultaneously, by or through more than one corporation, individual, firm, syndicate or association or any combination thereof, under common control or direction, the Board may, upon the application of any person, trade union or council of trade unions con­cerned, treat the corporations, individuals, firms, syndicates or associations or any combination thereof as constituting one employer for the purposes of this Act and grant such relief, by way of declaration or otherwise, as it may deem appropriate.

In order for the Board to have the discretion to declare, as Local 27 asks, that Projects and Floor­ing be treated as one employer for purposes of the Labour Relations Act, three prerequisites must be present:

(1) there must be more than one corporation, individual, firm, syndicate or association, or any combination thereof;

(2) the two or more entities concerned must carry on related or associ­ated activities or businesses; and,

(3) the activities or businesses of the entities concerned must be under common control or direction.

17. The first two prerequisites are satisfied on the facts of this application. The Board dis­agrees with the argument of counsel for Flooring that the activities and businesses carried on by it and Projects are unrelated because Projects has been in business for five years, does large jobs in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry and has its own work force, whereas Flooring is just getting started in business, does small residential jobs which Projects does not do and has no work force other than El-Eid. Flooring was incorporated in anticipation of performing the Holy Angels school project which El-Eid described as his first big job. It and St. Mary's school are both ICI projects and, even assuming "business size" makes a dif­ference (the Board thinks it does not), those two projects were substantial jobs requiring several weeks to complete, according to documents submitted in evidence by Flooring. The length of time an entity has carried on an activity or business is irrelevant to whether its activity or business is related to the activity or business of another entity. Nor is the existence or absence of a workforce by itself indicative of the relationship of activities and businesses of two entities in contention under subsection 1(4), particularly in the construction industry where successful businesses exist without directly employing any tradesmen. See for example Krest Masonry Contracting, [1988] OLRB Rep. Oct. 1022, a decision relied on by counsel for Local 27 for a different purpose. In addition, the "differences" which counsel for Flooring has identified are distinguishable from the fact situation in Arbis Construction Ltd., [1983] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1959 on which he relies. The Board is satisfied here that Projects' and Flooring's activities and businesses are of the same char­acter, serve the same market (resilient flooring contracting in the ICI sector of the construction industry) and utilize similar employee skills.

18. Therefore, if the Board is satisfied that the related activities and businesses of Projects and Flooring are carried on under common control or direction, it would have the discretion to make the declaration and provide other relief sought and it would become a matter of how it ought to exercise its discretion.

19. The Board has identified various criteria or indicia as providing some assistance in determining whether businesses which carry on associated or related activities or businesses do so under common control or direction. The following were considered in Walters Lithographic Com­pany Limited, [1971] OLRB Rep. July 406, a decision referred to the Board by counsel for Floor­ing:

(1) common ownership or financial control;

(2) common management;

(3) interrelationship of operations;

(4) representation to the public as a single integrated enterprise; and

(5) centralized control of labour relations.

20. While these criteria assist the Board in determining whether two or more entities are under common control or direction for purposes of subsection 1(4), each one need not be demon­strated and no single criterion stands out as determinative of that relationship, or as having more weight than the others. Nor is it necessary that Projects and Flooring themselves, or all of their activities and businesses, be under common control or direction. It is sufficient that the related activities be under common direction or control. In this respect, see the Board's analysis in Brantwood Manor Nursing Homes Limited, [1986] OLRB Rep. Jan. 9, at paragraphs 104 and 105, which the Board herein adopts. The Board is satisfied in this application, from the evidence of common management, interrelationship of operations, some measure of financial control and some measure of representation to the public that Projects and Flooring are a single, integrated opera­tion, that the related activities or businesses which they carry on, are carried on under common control or direction within the meaning of subsection 1(4).

21. There is no common ownership of the two entities. Randa Wehbe owns Projects and her brother, El-Eid, owns Flooring. There is some evidence, however, of Projects exercising finan­cial control over Flooring. The existence of some financial control is demonstrated by the manner in which Wehbe took Projects' employees off Flooring's jobs from time to time to complete defi­ciency work for Projects on the Rosedale Heights school job. The cost of their wages and benefits were being borne, at the time, by Flooring because, once the employees started work on its jobs, it was reimbursing Projects for wages and benefits. There is no evidence that the charges to Flooring were adjusted to allow for the time that the employees worked for Projects. Absent such evidence, it may be inferred that Flooring bore those costs and did so because through Wehbe, either as an employee of Projects or as "family", Projects exercised sufficient financial control over Flooring to do as it pleased in that respect.

22. The fact that Wehbe could so readily divert Projects' employees who were supposed to be working for Flooring from its jobs to Projects' Rosedale Heights job is an element in the com­mon management of the two companies as well. Common management of the two companies is demonstrated also by other actions which Wehbe took on Flooring's behalf. He instructed Projects' employees working for Flooring on Holy Angels school to leave that job and perform particular work on St. Mary's school and then return to Holy Angels. He also took equipment and blueprints to the St. Mary's job and reviewed the prints with the employees and the work which they were to perform for Flooring. He discussed the scheduling of Flooring's work on the job with the general contractor's superintendent. Wehbe brought supplies to Holy Angels school for Floor­ing's use. He also discussed with the general contractor's superintendent on that job some concerns which the superintendent had with the terrazzo floor part of the job and how Flooring would sat­isfy those concerns. El-Eid was not as active on Projects' behalf, but he did make sure that Projects' deficiency work on the Rosedale Heights school job was attended to by Reilly.

23. One manifestation of Projects' and Flooring's interrelationship is in their financial deal­ings with each other, particularly respecting Projects' employees who worked for Flooring. The inadequacy of documentary evidence to support El-Eid's claim that he reimbursed Projects for all wages and benefits costs of its employees who worked for Flooring and that Projects reimbursed Flooring for payments it made to Projects' employees for working on the Rosedale Heights job, leads the Board to infer that a financial interdependency exists between them. That aspect of their relationship was conveyed, even if inadvertently, to Projects' employees who worked for Flooring on the St. Mary's school job when they were paid by money orders purchased by Flooring accom­panied by Projects' pay statements. Such financial arrangements, including Flooring's payment to one of Projects' creditors as part reimbursement of moneys owed by Flooring to Projects, are not the stuff of a normal, arms length commercial relationship.

24. Another aspect of the interrelationship of their operations is found in the arrangement for Flooring to use Projects' employees on Flooring's jobs. It too is not a normal, employees arm's length sub-contracting arrangement, otherwise Wehbe would not have been able, at his will, to take Projects' employees off Flooring's jobs to work on Projects' Rosedale Heights school job.

25. Other evidence of the interrelationship of their operations exists in the fact that Projects and Flooring use the same firm of solicitors and the same accountant; they share the use of the minimal equipment needed to carry on their related business activities; and Wehbe has referred and will continue to refer work to Flooring which Projects performed before it stopped taking new work in August 1991. This aspect of their interrelationship is significant to Floorings. With El-Eid's relative inexperience, it is unlikely that Floorings would have been able to obtain the Holy Angels and St. Mary's jobs. Also, since Flooring owned a roller, El-Eid's ability to use Projects' van and Hilte gun without cost whenever he needed them gave Flooring all of the equipment it needed to carry on its business of installing resilient flooring.

26. Projects and Flooring are small contractors operating out of the homes of their owners so it is not surprising that there is little evidence of them having been held out to the public as a single integrated business. There has been no need to do so. Nonetheless, Wehbe field them out to be a single concern when he held himself out to the superintendents of the Holy Angels and St. Mary's jobs as the person who could satisfy their concerns about the quality and scheduling of Flooring's work on those jobs. He also reinforced the impression that flooring's and Projects' operations were integrated by the way he moved Projects' employees between those jobs and tts Rosedale Heights job. That impression would be further reinforced by the fact that El-Eid was well known to Projects' clients as an employee of Projects. Certainly, Bradscot's superintendent looked to El-Eid for getting Projects' work completed on the Rosedale Heights job while Wehbe was away.

27. The facts fall short of establishing the presence of all five criteria referred to above and used by the Board to determine whether associated or related activities or businesses are carried on under common control or direction. However, given that the two respondents are owned and managed by members of a closely knit family, although separately owned, and do not deal with one another in a normal, arms length business manner, the Board is of the view that there is a suf­ficient interrelationship of their operations, along with some common management, financial con­trol and representation to contractor clients as a single, integrated enterprise to infer that Projects and Flooring have carried on related activities or businesses under common control or direction from June 13,1991, when Floorings was incorporated.

28. For these foregoing reasons and in all of the circumstances of the application, the Board is satisfied that R.R. Projects Inc. and Golden Arm Flooring Inc. carry on related activities or bus­inesses under common control or direction within the meaning of subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act. Thus the Board has the discretion to declare that they be treated as constituting one employer for purposes of the Act and the remaining question is whether it should make it.

29. Counsel for Floorings argues that a declaration is unwarranted. He submits that there has been no erosion of bargaining rights, since the employees of Projects who worked on Floor­ing's jobs were paid by Projects under the terms of the Agreement; there has been no siphoning of Projects' work to Flooring; and, Projects' employees were not confused about which entity was their true employer. In short, counsel argues that no mischief existed which needed curing by means of a one employer declaration. Wehbe, for Projects' adopts that argument.

30. The Board disagrees for several reasons. the potential exists for erosion of Local 27's bargaining rights for Projects' employees and it is not required to wait until the actual erosion has been demonstrated; West York Construction Limited, [1978] OLRB Rep. Sept. 879; or until Projects' business has vanished, Kustom Insulation Ltd., [1979] OLRB Rep. June 531, before it is entitled to have its bargaining rights protected by a one employer declaration. Local 27 acquired those bargaining rights January 17, 1991. In less than six months time, El-Eid, whom everyone knew as an employee of Projects, according to Wehbe, had incorporated Flooring. Its business objects overlap those of Projects in the area of contracting for the supply and installation of resil­ient flooring. It was formed for the specific purpose of performing a flooring contract for Bradscot on the Holy Angels School job. Projects was performing the same kind of work for Bradscot on the Rosedale Heights School job during this same period. El-Eid was also on that job doing piece work labour for Bradscot, and that is when he got Flooring's second contract, the one for St. Mary's school from Torcom. The contract would not have been available to Flooring had Wehbe not declined the job, after Projects had successfully bid for it, and recommended El-Eid to the general contractor, Torcom. Wehbe cited "financial problems" as the reason why he did not want Projects to enter into a contract with Torcom, but Projects did not adduce any evidence as to the specific nature of those problems. Nor did he tell the Board when Projects would resume taking contracts. He did make it clear, however, that he would continue to refer to Flooring other jobs which he might reject for Projects, because El-Eid was his closest relative and it made sense to give the work to him.

31. It is tempting, and in the Board's view, not unreasonable in these circumstances and having regard to the arrangements which Wehbe made with Projects' employees to work for less pay than they were entitled to under the Agreement, for the Board to infer that Wehbe refused the contract with Torcom and arranged for Flooring to take it instead, in order to circumvent Projects' collective bargaining obligations. It is unnecessary to do so, however, because the threat to Local 27's bargaining rights exists in the presence of Flooring as a company carrying on related activities or businesses under common control or direction with Projects. Flooring is there to fill the void for Projects by taking any business which Projects does not want. The St. Mary's school job is a con­crete example. Contractors who have done business with Projects would know also that, if they do business with Flooring, they would still be able to rely on Wehbe's expertise and knowledge of resilient flooring. Wehbe demonstrated that amply on the St. Mary's and Holy Angels schools when, on Flooring's behalf, he dealt with the general contractors' superintendents respecting prob­lems of work scheduling and work quality.

32. This arrangement allows Projects to divert all or any part of the business which it has pursued in the past to Flooring. Local 27 would represent employees engaged on any jobs which, but for the presence of Flooring, Projects might otherwise take in the future. The arrangement with Flooring removes the need for Projects to compete with other firms both non-union and unionized, without regard for the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore the arrange­ment also allows Projects to avoid its bargaining rights with Local 27 when seeking work covered by the Agreement. In that respect, see Kustom Insulation, supra. Given the importance which Wehbe attaches to the closeness of the two families and their demonstrated propensity for doing business together in a non-arms-length fashion, it would be reasonable for the Board to infer, and it does, that both Projects and Flooring would benefit from the arrangement. These are good and sufficient reasons for the Board to exercise its discretion by declaring that Projects and Flooring be treated as one employer.

33. Accordingly, in all of the circumstances of this application, the Board declares that R.R. Projects Inc. and Golden Arm Flooring Inc. are to be treated as one employer for purposes of the Labour Relations Act. The Board declares also that Golden Arm Flooring Inc. is bound by the Provincial Collective Agreement between the Carpenters Employer Bargaining Agency and the Ontario Provincial Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America effective May 1, 1990 to April 30, 1992. The Board is satisfied also that this is a proper case in which to adopt the reasoning in J. D. S. Investments Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. March 294 and not limit the retrospective effect of the Board's declaration.

34. The Board is further satisfied that this is an appropriate application in which to grant additional relief in the form of a direction that Flooring pay to Local 27 the unsatisfied damages, if any, arising out of an award of $27,247.60 damages against Projects by another panel of the Board on December 4, 1991. The award was made in an arbitration of a grievance against Projects referred under section 126 [formerly section 124] of the Act on October 22, 1991. The damages were awarded when the Board found that Projects had breached the Agreement by failing to remit the benefit plan contributions which, by the terms of the Agreement, it was obligated to remit. This application was made October 18, 1991 and included a request for relief in the form of an order that Flooring pay all outstanding benefits owed by Projects to and on behalf of members of Local 27. The request was pursued in final argument of this application.

35. The other panel of the Board has found that Projects has performed work covered by the Agreement, but did not comply with all of its financial obligations to its employees and to Local 27 under the Agreement. In this application, the Board has found that Flooring also oper­ated outside the agreement to perform work covered by the agreement that should have been per­formed by Projects. These activities by Flooring and Projects took place in a context where the Board has concluded they ought to be treated as a single employer for purposes of the Act. In the circumstances here, it is appropriate that Projects and Flooring bear the burden of each other's transgressions. Accordingly, the Board directs that Golden Arm Flooring Inc. forthwith pay to Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer­ica, on its own behalf and on behalf of and in trust for its members, the unsatisfied damages, if any, arising out of the award of $27, 247.60 made December 4, 1991 against R. R. Projects Inc. in Board File No. 2410-91-G.

36. In summary, the Board has:

(1) declared that R. R. Projects Inc., and Golden Arm Flooring Inc., are to be treated as constituting one employer for purposes of the Labour Relations Act;

(2) directed Golden Arm Flooring Inc., to pay damages as aforesaid to Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; and

(3) dismissed the application in Board File No. 2374-91-R for the rea­sons given in paragraph 3.