[1996] OLRB Rep. May/June 343
1770-87-JD Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., Applicant v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 771 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1744, Responding Parties
BEFORE: Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair, and Board Members H. Kobryn and Janet Trim.
APPERANCES: Peter J. Thorup for the applicant; Lorne Richmond for the I.A.M.; S.B.D. Wahl for the I.B.E.W.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 23, 1996
This is an application filed by Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. ("Boise") under section 91 [now section 99] of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The work assignment dispute which generated this application was initiated when Boise assigned certain instrumentation work which had previously been performed exclusively by members of the International Association of Machinists, Local 771 ("the 1A.M.") to members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1744 ("the I.B.E.W."). The I.A.M. and I.B.E.W. collective agreements with Boise dictate that members of the 1A.M. perform pneumatic, hydraulic or fluidic instrumentation work (hereafter referred to as "pneumatic instrumentation") and that members of the I.B.E.W. perform electrical and electronic instrumentation work (hereafter referred to as "electronic instrumentation"). Boise claims that this demarcation line is no longer a rational one given the technological and equipment changes that have occurred within at least the last decade. Boise submits that splitting instrumentation work between two groups of employees leads to considerable inefficiencies and other problems affecting Boise's ability to compete. It is this view that caused Boise to assign pneumatic instrumentation to members of the IBEW. in 1987. Boise requests that the Board direct the maintenance, repair and installation of all instrumentation work performed by Boise employees be assigned to members of the I.B.E.W. or, alternatively, that pneumatic instrumentation be shared on an interim basis by members of both the 1A.M. and I.B.E.W. The I.A.M. and the I.B.E.W. take the position that Boise is not entitled to the relief it requests and that this application should be dismissed.
This application does not represent the first occasion these parties have had a dispute concerning the assignment of instrumentation work. Before addressing a preliminary issue raised by the responding parties and the merits of the application, the Board will review some events which proceeded this application as well as some of the history of this application. In making its factual determinations, the Board has considered the facts agreed to by the parties, the documentary evidence, the evidence of Jim Gartshore, Maintenance Manager of Boise's Fort Frances mill, and the submissions of the parties relating thereto. The Board notes that the I.A.M. and the I.B.E.W. did not call any evidence on the merits of the application.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THIS APPLICATION
Boise operates 8 pulp and paper mills in the United States and it operates mills at Kenora and Fort Frances, Ontario, the latter mill being the subject of this application. Boise is bound to 4 mill collective agreements at Fort Frances. The Fort Frances and Kenora collective agreements have common expiry dates and are negotiated through multi-union central bargaining. Out of the approximately 700 employees at the Fort Frances mill, 180 employees are covered by the I.A.M. collective agreement and 38 employees are covered by the I.B.E.W. collective agreement. Approximately 8 of the I.A.M. members are primarily involved in pneumatic instrumentation work and approximately 8 I.B.E.W. workers are involved in work on electronic instrumentation and electronically distributed control systems.
During the early years of the its operation, equipment in the Fort Frances mill was activated or controlled by pneumatic, fluidic or hydraulic systems. These systems were maintained by employees who were members of the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Boilers, Fort Frances, Local 146 ("Local 146"). The bargaining rights of Local 146 were terminated just prior to 1970. In a 1970 proceeding before the Board, the I.A.M. and the I.B.E.W. both applied to represent employees engaged in pneumatic instrumentation work. The Board determined that instrument mechanics did not constitute a craft bargaining unit. The Board certified the 1A.M. for a tag-end unit of "... all employees of the respondent engaged in the installation, maintenance, dismantling and assembly of pneumatic, hydraulic and fluidic instrumentation ..." Given the technology and equipment in use up until the 1980's, employees from one union were responsible for the entire instrumentation loop on virtually all systems in the mill.
Beginning in the late 1970's and increasingly more recently, many pneumatic instrumentation systems were being replaced or eliminated by electronic instrumentation systems. Certain components of these systems were similar to other systems maintained by members of the I.B.E.W. The new electronic instrumentation was often integrated or connected with computer systems maintained by members of the I.B.E.W. In the early 1980's, approximately 90% of the instrumentation loops required work by one member of a bargaining unit. In the late 1980's, 50% of the loops involved both pneumatic and electronic instrumentation. By the early 1990's, approximately 80% of the loops involved both electronic instrumentation and some degree of pneumatic instrumentation. Although pneumatic instrumentation will always be present, the trend towards utilization of electronic instrumentation and associated computer equipment is obvious and inevitable. With these technological developments and the existing demarcation line, Boise is often forced to assign 2 individuals to work on the same loop since the source of the problem is unknown.
The I.A.M., recognizing the trend in instrumentation work, sought to protect and expand its work jurisdiction. The I.A.M. wanted instrument mechanics to perform all instrumentation on certain loops. The attempt to expand its jurisdiction occurred over the course of several sets of collective bargaining negotiations in the 1980's. It also occurred when the I.