Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1993] OLRB Rep. December 1397
1672-93-JD IronWorkers' District Council of Ontario and the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental IronWorkers, Local 700, Applicant v. The State Group Limited, State Contractors Inc., Millwrights District Council of Ontario, Millwrights Local 1244, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Ontario Erectors Association Incorporated, Association of Millwrighting Contractors of Ontario, Responding Parties
BEFORE: Louisa M. Davie, Vice-Chair, and Board Members D. A. MacDonald and J. Redshaw.
APPEARANCES: S. B. D. Wahl, G. Michaluk and F. Marr for the applicant; N. L. Jesin and H. Martinak for Millwrights Local 1244; no one appearing for responding party The State Group Limited; no one appearing for the other responding parties.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 16, 1993
This is an jurisdictional dispute complaint filed on August 24, 1993 pursuant to the recently amended section 93 of the Labour Relations Act ("the Act").
On December 15, 1993 the Board held a consultation with the parties. At that time only representatives of the applicant trade union ("the Ironworkers Local 700") and representatives of the responding party trade union ("the Millwrights Local 1244") were in attendance. None of the other responding parties had filed any material with the Board as required by sections 72 to 76 of the Board's Rules of Procedure. None of the other responding parties attended the consultation although each party was properly served with notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the consultation. In the circumstances the Board proceeded and conducted the consultation pursuant to sections 93 (1.1) and 93 (1.2) of the Act in the absence of the other named responding parties.
As required by the Board's Rules of Procedure, counsel for the Ironworkers Local 700 and counsel for the Millwrights Local 1244 had filed extensive written material with the Board prior to the commencement of the consultation. In addition both counsel made extensive oral submissions to the Board at the consultation on December 15, 1993. Having regard to the material filed and the submissions of the parties were find that we are able to decide this complaint without requiring the parties to present oral evidence.
We find that the work in dispute cannot properly be described as either a "conveyor system" or a "production or processing equipment". Rather, and without itemizing in detail the various components of the system we are satisfied that the work in dispute is a completely integrated material handling system. The system includes both production equipment and machinery and equipment or machinery which conveys or moves the product through the production process but is generally described as a "material handling system."
On balance, and having particular regard to the prevailing area practice and the decision of the Board in Comstock Canada, [1993] OLRB Rep. Aug. 740 we are satisfied that the correct assignment of the work in dispute is to a composite crew, consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing the work functions in question interchangeably. This has been the general practice in Board Area #1 and is the more practical and reasonable assignment in all of the circumstances.
In the circumstances we order and direct that:
all construction work in connection with the installation, erection, dismantling, alteration, relocation, and repair of material handling systems inclusive of all types of conveyor systems, machinery and/or equipment including the off loading, rigging, handling, placement, alignment, leveling, securing, adjusting and repairing thereof at the D.N.N. Hot Dip Galvanizing Line #1, Windsor, Ontario should be assigned to a crew consisting of equal number of members of Ironworkers, Local 700 and Millwrights Local 1244 performing all work functions interchangeably.
We have further determined and direct that our order with respect to the assignment of this work in relation to a material handling system is to be binding upon all the parties named in the complaint including the employer contractor who assigned the work and the two employer organizations named in the application. Further, pursuant to section 93 (2) of the Act, our order is binding as well upon all other future jobs undertaken in Board Area #1. Our order applies to assignments made by contractors who are bound to both the Ironworkers Provincial Agreement and the Millwrights Provincial Agreement. (See, Comstock, supra and the reasons set out therein as they relate to the scope of the order.)
Notwithstanding the requests made by the Ironworkers Local 700 and the Millwrights Local 1244 we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to make any other orders or directions in the circumstances of this case.
In light of the submissions of the parties we wish to emphasize that our decision is not intended to apply to all "in-plant" construction work. This decision does not stand for the proposition that all "in-plant" construction work should be performed by a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of members of Ironworkers Local 700 and Millwrights Local 1244 performing all work functions interchangeably. For example, and in particular, we note that the work in dispute before us does not involve stand alone machinery or equipment. The work in dispute involved machinery and equipment which was an integral part and component of the material handling system. It is such a system, including its machinery and equipment which is the subject matter of our orders and directions.