International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1788 v. Ontario Hydro, 1993 CanLII 7923

[1993] OLRB Rep. November 1167

3427-92-JD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1788, Applicant v. Ontario Hydro and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000, Responding Parties

BEFORE: Jules Bloch, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. N. Fraser and J. Redshaw

APPEARANCES: L. A. Richmond, J. Sprackett and H. Bartlett for Electrical Workers Local Union 1788; M. Patrick Moran, Vello Medri, Tim Liznick, Pierre Tremblay and Jennifer Wooton Regan for Ontario Hydro; R. Ross Wells, Peter Falconer, John Murphy, Ron Ford, Don McKinnon and Peter Kelly for C.U.P.E. Local 1000.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 12, 1993

1. This is a jurisdictional complaint, filed in February 1993, pursuant to the recently amended section 93 of the Labour Relations Act ("the Act"). The Board held several days of con­sultation with the parties prior to issuing a bottom line oral decision. The bottom line oral decision was issued in written form on May 25, 1993. On August 3, 1993, the panel received a request from the complainant in this matter, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1788 ("Local 1788"), to issue full reasons for the decision.

2. The work in dispute is the installation of a local area network ("LAN") computer sys­tem at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station ("PNGS") of Ontario Hydro at Pickering, Ontario, more particularly described below:

a. The terminating point for fibre optic cable distribution will be the "Network Operat­ing Centre" ("NOC") to be located in the Administration Building in the vicinity of the Data Centre. Twisted par copper cable will be run from the NOC to a wiring closet on each floor of the Administration Building;

b. Fibre optic cable will be run from the NOC to a wiring closet in the Production Main­tenance Area;

c. Fibre optic cable will be run from the Production Maintenance Area wiring closet to a wiring closet in the Control Room of Generating Station "A".

d. Fibre optic cable will be run from the Production Maintenance Area wiring closet to a wiring closet in the control Room of Generating Station "B";

e. Fibre optic cable will be run from the Production Maintenance Area wiring closet to a wiring closet on each floor of the Service Wing;

f. Fibre optic cable will be run from the NOC to a wiring closet in the Eastern Nuclear Training Centre ("ENTC") which is located on Ontario Hydro property but outside PNGS. This will require some trenching in the exclusionary zone and overhead cabling over Montgomery Park Road;

g. Fibre optic cable will be run from the NOC to a wiring closet in the Construction Ser­vices Computer Room ("CSCR") which is also located on Ontario Hydro property, but is outside PGS. This cable will connect to an existing mini-LAN at the CSCR;

h. Within the NOC the fibre optic cable will be connected to the Mainframe through routers, gateways and bridges.

The bulk of the work concerns the installation of fibre optic and twisted pair copper cable. All par­ties agree that this is a systems upgrade. The project was budgeted at approximately $4,000,000. A budget of $300,000.00 was allocated to the labour costs associated with cabling.

3. To understand the true nature of what is at stake in this dispute is to understand the sign of the times. The responding party Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 ("CUPE") and the complainant Local 1788 have lived for many years in industrial peace. Each union viewed its collective bargaining relationship with the employer Ontario Hydro ("Hydro") in the same way. CUPE saw itself as representing the maintenance workers within the Hydro family while Local 1788 represented Hydro's direct hire electrical construction workers. This peaceful coexistence was brought to a shattering end as a consequence of the restructuring of Ontario Hydro, the purchase service agreement between Hydro and CUPE and the reality of no new con­struction. These three factors, and perhaps other unnamed ones, created a tension between two unions about the issue of where does maintenance begin and construction end and vice versa?

4. A Jurisdictional dispute responds to the parties' need for certainty of work assignment. The Board is requested to assess, in a forensic way, what has happened in the past in respect of the work that has been assigned. The Board reviews certain factors including agreements between the trade unions respecting the work in question, the competing collective agreements, the skill and ability of the competing work force; the economy and efficiency of the competing work force; employer preference, employer practice in assigning the work and past practice in a given Board area or in the province as a whole within a sector of the construction industry.

5. The case at hand, deals with an industrial work force on one hand and a construction work force on the other. The above noted factors have to be modified to deal with these particular, and in some ways unique, work assignment problems.

6. The panel during its deliberations focused on four factors; the competing collective agreements; the skill and ability of the work forces; employer preference; and Hydro's practice in respect of the work in dispute within the Province of Ontario. In this particular dispute, both work forces are directly hired by Hydro. Although this arises in an Electrical Power Sector context, Hydro is the direct employer, consequently we did not take into account practice as it relates to other employers within the Electrical Power Sector. The only practice that we reviewed was prac­tice in relationship to assignments, made by Hydro to either CUPE or Local 1788.

The Collective Agreements

7. Article 1.1 the recognition clause of the collective Agreement between Hydro and CUPE states:

1.1 Ontario Hydro recognizes the Union as the sole bargaining agent for all regular, part-time and temporary employees*, including technicians and clerical employees of the construction field forces but excluding:

(a) Employees now represented by other bargaining agents.

(b) Employees assigned to full-time security work.

(c) Persons above the rank of working supervisor.

Article 14.0 of the Collective Agreement between Hydro and CUPE states:

ARTICLE 14

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND WORK ASSIGNMENT

14.0

It is the Corporation's intent to use regular staff to perform most of its work of a continuing nature. Furthermore, the Corporation will strive to provide regular staff stability of employ­ment.

The Working Paper on Staffing and Employment dated March 15, 1985 states Management's intentions with regard to continuity of employment for regular staff and proportions of work expected to be undertaken by regular staff. For at least the term of this Collective Agreement, Ontario Hydro will not reduce the stated proportions of work to be done by regular staff.

At the end of each six-month period commencing January 1987, Ontario Hydro will prepare a statement showing the proportions of work done by regular staff and make this information available to the OHEU.

It is understood that the Working Paper on Staffing and Employment, as distinct from the terms of the above provisions, does not form part of the Collective Agreement and is not subject to the grievance and arbitration process.

Article 14.1 of the collective agreement states:

14.1 Work Assignment

1. It is understood that the assignment of work to purchased services does not convey a right to such work in the future, nor does it create any precedent with respect to future assignment of such work to purchased service employees by the employer.

2. It is agreed between the parties that no more than 450 Ontario Hydro tradespersons will be assigned by the Corporation at any one time under the EPSCA Maintenance Assist agreement to perform work for the Corporation. The Corporation agrees to inform the Union of the number of Ontario Hydro tradespersons assigned under the EPSCA Maintenance Assist agreement on a monthly basis.

Article 3.2.1.3 of the Working Paper on Staffing and Employment referred to in Article 14 above states:

3.2.1.3 Construction

Ontario Hydro will use members of the International Building Trades Unions together with Ontario Hydro's technical and administrative support staff to perform its construction work for additions, modifications, rehabilitations, and terminations of Generation and Transmission facilities when it is the direct employer. Construction work that is contracted may be performed by members of the International Building Trades Unions or others, depending upon the condi­tions of the tendering document.

The 1992 Memorandum of Settlement between Hydro and Local 1788, which is part of the collec­tive agreement between the parties, included a separate memorandum which deals specifically with the issue before us.

Whereas Local Union 1788 has been chartered specifically for Ontario Hydro construction industry work; and

Whereas Local Union 1788 has performed construction industry work beyond the scope of the EPSCA Collective Agreement and will continue to perform this work when done by Ontario Hydro; and

Whereas it is the desire of the parties to clarify the interfaces and working arrangements for maintenance and construction industry work performed by any Ontario Hydro Branch with Ontario Hydro employees on Ontario Hydro generating facilities to promote harmonious work­ing relations between the Ontario Hydro branches and their respective unions.

The parties agree to the following which will form part of the collective agreement:

It is recognized that Local Union 1788 is the Bargaining Agent for a unit of employees as defined in Section 200 B of the Collective Agreement for all construction industry work performed by said employees of Ontario Hydro on Ontario Hydro generating facilities. This excludes maintenance assist type work performed in the past by Local Union 1788.

The parties agree that the intent of this document is to preserve the status quo regard­ing the determination of construction industry work. Should a dispute arise on whether work to be performed by Ontario Hydro is maintenance or construction industry work, the parties agree to establish a final and binding tripartite (IBEW Local 1788, CUPE Local 1000 and Ontario Hydro) Dispute Resolution Process along with determinative Decision Criteria including Ontario Hydro's past practice.

Nothing in this agreement limits Ontario Hydro's right to contract work.

Section 2 of the 1988-1990 Collective Agreement between Hydro and Local 1788 states:

SECTION 2 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT

200 A. agency for a bargaining unit as defined in Item B engaged in all construction Recognition industry work performed in the Province of Ontario on Ontario Hydro property for the Generation Projects Division of Ontario Hydro. This work includes the building of generating stations, hydraulic works, heavy water facilities, microwave and repeater stations, hut excludes the building of commercial type office facilities at urban locations remote from operating facilities and any work performed by Ontario Hydro on a Miscellaneous Hydraulic Project.

B. The bargaining unit under this Agreement shall comprise the following classi­fications:

Electrician Journeyman including Foreman and Sub foreman

Electrician Welder

Electrician Apprentice

Communications Electrician.

If additional classifications are required, they will be negotiated as appropriate for work in the electrical power systems sector.

C. The Union recognizes EPSCA as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agency for all of the Employers covered by this Agreement, and in all matters

pertaining to the administration of this Collective Agreement.

D. The term "employee" shall include all employees of the Employers in the clas­sifications as set out in Item B above.

E. A subforeman is an individual who exercises supervisory responsibility and may use the tools of the trade.

F. The term "Employers" shall include individual members of EPSCA and any company, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture, contractor, subcon­tractor or any person that agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

G. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in this Subsection, this Agreement does not alter existing agreements and practices operative between individual

Employers and the Union with respect to General Foremen.

H. The classifications referred to in Item B do not establish craft jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is established in accordance with Section 4 of this Collective Agreement.

200 B. This Agreement shall consist of a master portion of general

Form of application to the construction field forces represented by

Agreement the Union together with the following Appendices and/or wage schedules of particular application to employees repre­sented by the Union at Projects or in areas as noted in Subsection 202 below, and shall also be deemed to include any additional Appendix and/or wage schedule added, as the said Appendices and/or wage schedules may be revised by EPSCA and the Union from time to time.

This clause remained substantially unchanged in the 1990-1992 Collective Agreement between the parties. In the 1992-1995 agreement, sub-section A of Section 2 was modified to read:

SECTION 2-SCOPE OF AGREEMENT

DELETE AND REPLACE WITH:

200 A. EPSCA recognizes the Unions as the exclusive bargaining

Recognition agency for a bargaining unit as defined in item B engaged in

i) all construction industry work performed for or by Ontario Hydro under­taken by Design and Construction/ENCON Services Branch on generating facilities,

ii) all Major* construction industry work which is tendered/contracted for all other Divisions of Ontario Hydro and,

iii) work performed by the Design and Construction/ENCON Services Branch for any Operations Branch of Ontario Hydro where it has been determined by that Operations Branch that there does not exist internally the expertise or the current staff to perform the work.

This work shall be performed in the Province of Ontario on Ontario Hydro property for generating facilities. This work includes the building of generat­ing stations, hydraulic works, heavy water facilities, microwave and repeater stations but excludes the building of commercial-type office facilities at urban locations remote from operating facilities and any work performed by Ontario Hydro on a Miscellaneous Hydraulic Project. The work encompasses:

• construction of new facilities

• additions to existing facilities

• modifications

• rehabilitation

• reconstruction of existing facilities

• The definition of Major described in ii) above and any issues arising out of the interpretation of Major shall be dealt with in an attached Letter of Under­standing.

This Agreement shall become effective May 1, 1992 and will expire on April 30, 1995.

8. Although Local 1788 and Hydro attempted to create a dispute resolution mechanism, (see the memo of settlement above) they were unable to agree to one. The bargaining relationships between the parties were set up with the intention of avoiding overlap. However, as a consequence of the parties failure to delineate a distinction between maintenance and construction a large grey area has developed. This grey area specifically comes into focus in respect to construction electri­cians on one hand and maintenance workers on the other in respect of Modifications.

9. The collective agreement between Hydro and CUPE does not, on its face, cover con­struction electricians as the agreement does not refer to them specifically. The collective agree­ment between Hydro and CUPE is a very large document. It includes a master portion and seven parts. We do not intend to reproduce each part within this decision. Only in Part B, of the agree­ment, entitled Maintenance Trades, and Part E of the agreement, entitled Construction Weekly-salaried -Clerical and Technical is there any indication that the parties, in their collective bargain­ing relationship attempted to deal with the maintenance-construction dichotomy. Counsel for the Local 1788 argued, and it was not contested, that Part E of the agreement, covered employees who worked with the design group and employees who gave administrative support to the construction group. Employees, covered by this part of the agreement, do not work on the installation of LANs. Within Part B of the agreement, entitled Maintenance Trades, the parties have negotiated categories of employees that closely resemble the construction trades. Counsel for CUPE, acknowledged that although the CUPE agreement does not cover construction work, in the Hydro sense of that term, CUPE forces have done modifications and rehabilitations which might be caught by the definition of construction in the Act.

10. In respect of the work performed on the LANs, that work was not done by employees pursuant to Part B of the agreement, but rather by shift control technicians. These technicians are covered by Part 0 of the agreement. Part G covers nuclear generating stations. These technicians, according to their job classification, generally perform tasks that include installations, commission­ing, modifications, overhaul inspections, troubleshooting, repair and preventive maintenance in respect of electrical-electronic control instrumentation, and computer equipment and/or systems.

11. All parties agree that Article 3.2.1.3 of the working paper on staffing and employment which is referred to in Article 14, attempts to maintain the status quo, with CUPE forces doing maintenance work and Local 1788 doing construction work. What the parties do not agree about is the definition of construction that the panel should be bound by in reviewing this dispute.

12. Generally speaking, within the context of a jurisdictional dispute, the panel must satisfy itself that both collective agreements are able to be interpreted such that the work in dispute is cov­ered within each trade unions jurisdictional work claim. In respect of Local 1788, it is clear and unambiguous, that the work in dispute is covered by their collective agreement with Hydro. In fact, none of the parties argued otherwise. In respect of CUPE, although it is not clear that the work in dispute falls within the ambit of their collective agreement with Hydro, there is enough ambiguity in respect of how the agreement has been applied such that the panel declines to decide this case on the basis that there is no jurisdictional claim in the CUPE collective agreement in respect of the work in dispute.

Skill and Ability

13. Counsel for Local 1788 argued that in respect of the definition of "construction", the Act, the Board's jurisprudence, and joint HydroCUPE documents, indicate that the work in dis­pute should be characterized as "construction". The reason for the upgrade of the system was to increase the overall capacity. The Board in a line of cases that includes Master Insulators Associa­tion of Ontario Inc., [1980] OLRB Rep Oct. 1477; National Elevator & Escalator Association, [1991] OLRB Rep April 555; Abitibi-Price Inc. [1986] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1613; Briecan Const. Limited, [1989] OLRB Rep. May 417; has found that work involving the addition to or replace­ment of equipment for the purpose of either increasing the capacity of the facility or system, or restoring the ability of a facility of a system to function properly is appropriately characterized as construction work. The Trades Qualification Act R.S.O. 1990 Ch. T.16 and the regulations there­under, provide that certified journeymen construction electricians, and registered apprentices are qualified to do the work in dispute. Section one of Regulation 1051 states:

REGULATION 1051

ELECTRICIAN

1. In this Regulation,

"certified trade" means the trade of electrician;

"electrician" means a person who,

(a) lays out, assembles, installs, repairs, maintains, connects or tests electrical fixtures, apparatus, control equipment and wiring for systems of alarm, communication, light, heat or power in buildings or other structures,

(b) plans proposed installations from blueprints, sketches or specifications and installs panel boards, switch boxes, pull boxes and other related electrical devices,

(c) measures, cuts, threads, bends, assembles and installs conduits and other types of electrical conductor enclosures that connect panels, boxes, outlets and other related electrical devices,

(d) installs brackets, hangers or equipment for supporting electrical equipment,

(e) installs in or draws electrical conductors through conductor enclosures,

(f) prepares conductors for splicing of electrical connections, secures conductor connec­tions by soldering or other mechanical means and reinsulates and protects conductor connections, or

(g) tests electrical equipment for proper function,

but does not include a person who is permanently employed in an industrial plant at a limited purpose occupation in the electrical trade.

Counsel submitted that by law the work in dispute can only be done by certified construction elec­tricians. The shift control technicians, are not required by, their terms of hiring, to be certified construction electricians.

14. In respect of this factor, it is clear that the Local 1788 has the skill and ability to do the work in question. It is not at all clear that the shift control technicians, represented by CUPE, as a group have the requisite skill and ability to do the work in dispute. It may be that individual techni­cians hold appropriate qualifications however that alone does not, in our view, allow us to find that the control technicians have the requisite skill and ability.

Employer Preference

15. Hydro, preferred using CUPE forces in respect of this work because CUPE forces were significantly less expensive. According to Hydro, CUPE forces had done this type of work previ­ously.

16. Hydro is one of the largest employers in the Province. Hydro has attempted to put in place a mechanism for work assignment between CUPE and Local 1788. Part of the mechanism includes a document entitled PW-46 Purchased services. This document is a joint Hydro-CUPE document which attempts to deal with issues of contracting out of work performed by CUPE 1000 members on a consensual bilateral basis. Local 1788 is not a party to this agreement however, this agreement has a direct affect on Local 1788's members. CUPE in these proceedings has taken the position that the work in dispute is a "minor modification" and consequently within CUPE's work jurisdiction. Counsel for the employer referred the Panel to a document entitled Field Work Assignment. The purpose of this document is to define the functions of the Production Branch, the Regions Branch, and the Design and Construction Branch with regard to the Bulk Electricity Sys­tem (B.E.S). This document provides an overview of the working arrangements in the field or at the site of generating stations and other facilities of the BES. In short, and in the context of how this document affects this dispute, both the Production Branch and the Regions Branch undertake minor modifications where design work is not involved, and at their discretion may install or undertake minor modifications and participate in installation of any other "change" work designed and supplied by the Design and Construction Branch using regular staff to the extent that regular CUPE trades with appropriate skills are locally available. The Design and Construction Branch's main functions are the design, development and construction of new facilities for the BES. How­ever when design, provided by the Design and Construction Branch is involved, it also has the responsibility for providing modifications, additions, and rehabilitations to in-service facilities of the BES, using field work.

17. This document indicates that when the Design and Construction Branch is involved, then the work is usually done by construction forces (for our purposes Local 1788), however when Design and Construction Branch is not involved, then the work usually gets performed by CUPE forces. This document does not include a definition of minor modification. However, the Guide­lines For Mid-Term PW-46 Implementation includes a definition of minor modification:

(c) Minor modifications which include:

• modifications which are incidental to larger maintenance,

• modifications not involving Design Services from the ENCON Branch, or

• modifications which are component upgrading during preventive or break­down maintenance.

18. In November 1991, IBM proposed that it use construction electricians to install all twisted pair copper and fibre optic cable required for the upgrade. Hydro claims that this was too expensive as it would have cost $300,000 to do the work. Hydro submits that the shift control tech­nicians group could do the same work less expensively. Hydro did not ask ENCON (the construc­tion arm of Ontario Hydro) to submit a bid. This was very unusual, and not in keeping with Hydro's normal practice. Further, the system upgrade was initiated on the basis of an Engineering Change Notice ("ECN") which requires the involvement of the Design and Construction Branch. The system upgrade was not incidental to larger maintenance nor was it a component upgrade dur­ing preventative or breakdown maintenance. The system upgrade was not of the minor modifica­tion variety. Hydro, in giving the work in dispute to the shift control technicians, failed to follow its own internal work assignment mechanisms.

Employer Practice

19. The practice factor is an extremely important part of the jurisdictional dispute. In many instances it can be the determinative factor. Jurisdictional disputes, as we noted earlier, assess, in a forensic way, what has happened, in the past to the assignment of the disputed work. Past practice, and in this case employer practice, is a gauge by which a panel can determine who has done the work over a period of time. The most compelling practice relates directly to the work in dispute, and arises in contests where all interested parties know about and have the opportunity to partici­pate. In a construction industry case, practice is usually developed and tested in a mark-up meet­ing. All parties are put on notice about the work that is to be assigned. All competing trades make a pitch,to the employer, based on their understanding of their own work jurisdiction. After the employer awards the work, the losing trade can file a grievance or a jurisdictional dispute or other­wise seek to challenge the assignment, or accept the work assignment. In accepting the assignment, the losing trade is in effect acquiescing in the work assignment. The trade that received the assign­ment will include, in the future, that job as part of its practice in respect of that type of work.

20. This case is unusual in that there is no formal mechanism in Hydro's practice for the two unions here to assert that certain work should be theirs, other than the grievance procedure or the Jurisdictional Dispute. Hydro does not have mark-up meetings for work assignments which involve work, that both CUPE and Local 1788 might claim. Hydro does not notify, nor is it legally bound to notify, either CUPE or Local 1788 about work assignments in respect of work that both CUPE and Local 1788 might claim. Hydro, as indicated above has created an internal mechanism which does not involve Local 1788 until after the work has been assigned. This clearly makes it difficult for the competing unions to develop practice and then insure that the practice is being followed.

21. In this regard, CUPE has an advantage over Local 1788. First, CUPE is a party to PW­46, which as stated above, is a mechanism to decide who is going to be assigned work that can be performed by CUPE members in accordance with their collective agreement. In this respect, work that is claimed by both CUPE and Local 1788, is not exempt from the PW-46 process, conse­quently CUPE has an opportunity to participate in the assignment of work, while Local 1788 does not. Local 1788 does not get notified about the work assignment awarded to CUPE. Local 1788 can only find out, and subsequently complain about the work assignment, by seeing the work in progress and then grieve or file a Jurisdictional Dispute.

22. The second advantage relates to access to the sites or facilities. Local 1788 is a construction union. Local 1788 operates a hiring hall. Local 1788's members are not permanent employees of Hydro. These employees only work when they are requested by Hydro off a hiring hall list. CUPE members are part of an industrial work force. CUPE does not operate a hiring hall. CUPE members are at work day in day out. CUPE members are stationed on most sites and facilities in Hydro. They have access to almost all the sites and facilities. They can review all assignments made by the employer and consequently have the ability to complain through their grievance pro­cess or through a Jurisdictional dispute. The same can not be said about Local 1788. Local 1788 does not have access to the various sites and facilities unless they are working at a site or facility. Even when a member of Local 1788 has been requested from the hiring hall, the work that the member is assigned to will be for the most part a specific project. This work assignment does not guarantee the member access to the whole site. In this way practice may be developed by CUPE which has not been tested by Local 1788.

23. Practice that has developed because of lack of access to facilities or sites or because there is no mechanism by which all parties participate in the assignment of work may be given little weight by the Board. Of course, there may be circumstances where such practice evidence is of assistance; for example where it illustrates the certain work has not been considered by the parties to the collective agreement to have fallen within the work jurisdiction under that collective agree­ment. However, where parties to the agreement seek to rely on practice evidence of assignments made pursuant to the agreement, and the other union(s) have not been aware of, nor participated in, the assignments, this practice evidence provides little guidance in helping to answer the ques­tion before the Board: where there is a dispute between two trades or unions over a work assign­ment, which of the two ought to have been assigned the work? Assignments made without the knowledge or participation of one of the unions can therefore be of limited assistance in determin­ing which competing union should have received the work.

24. Hydro filed with the Board eight assignments where CUPE allegedly performed work which is similar to the work in dispute before this panel. CUPE filed five assignments, where CUPE allegedly performed work which is similar to the work in dispute. Local 1788 filed with the Board seven assignments where Local 1788 allegedly performed work which is similar to the work in dispute. In respect of the Hydro practice evidence, we find that the work in respect of: the new turbovisory system; the generator temperature monitoring system; the Ion chamber wiring reloca­tion; and the new regional over-power computers in Generating Station "B" at Pickering, NGS, done by CUPE, was done after the work had been turned over by the construction forces. This work mostly involve the commissioning of the system. In respect of the other past practice evidence, we accord it little weight. This evidence was gained without Local 1788's knowledge. We accept the practice of Local 1788 which was uncontested at the consultation. This substantial prac­tice, involving work similar to the work in dispute, indicates that Local 1788 should have done the work in dispute.

25. In summary, for the above reasons we determined that the correct assignment of the work in dispute was to Local 1788. Had Hydro followed its own prior practice, it would have allo­cated the work to Local 1788. The members of Local 1788 had the requisite skill and ability, while only some of the CUPE members did. The work in dispute is "construction" work, and not "main­tenance", and the historic division of work at Hydro between these two unions relegates "construc­tion" work to IBEW members. Relevant past practice at Hydro indicates that such work is per­formed by members of Local 1788.