Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1995] OLRB Rep. January 20
3253-94-JD The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and The Ontario Council of The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local Union 114, Applicants v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 247 and Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. and J.P. Matte Peintures Ltee., Responding Parties
BEFORE: Robert Herman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. N. Fraser and J. H. Irvine.
APPEARANCES: Brian G. Whitehead and James Andrews for the applicants; John Moszynski, Victor Claro, George Oliveira and Tony Sousa for Labourers, Local 247; no one appearing for Ellis-Don or J.P. Matte.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 26, 1995
1This is a complaint concerning a work assignment, filed pursuant to provisions of section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.
2The Board held a consultation on January 26, 1995, and provided the following oral decision at its conclusion:
We are not going to call on counsel for the Labourers to respond.
Here the work in dispute was the removal of lead-contaminated plaster, its bagging, and its further removal from the site.
In our view, the work in dispute does not appear to include the special containment and safety features associated with such removal. We reach no firm conclusion on whether J.P. Matte and its painters were doing this work, as is asserted before us by the Painters.
However, if in fact the Painters were involved in the proper containment and safety procedures, we decline to confirm that assignment.
With respect to the removal of the lead-contaminated plaster, we are satisfied that this work should have been assigned to the Labourers. The Labourers have the relevant practice in the Board area in question, and the Painters do not. Further, there is no indication that Painters are any better able to perform this work than are Labourers.
Indeed, Labourers have significantly greater experience with plaster removal.
We are not persuaded it makes sense to sanction the development of a different procedure because the plaster being removed contains lead.
This decision is not meant to comment on any entitlement of the Painters to perform lead-abatement.
Therefore, our decision is that the work in dispute, consisting of the removal of plaster, whether lead-contaminated or not, its bagging, and subsequent removal, should have been assigned to the Labourers.