United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1072 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
Court File No.: 3950-96-U Date: 1997-10-29 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Re: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1072 and Joe Almeida, Applicants And: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Responding Party
Before: R. O. MacDowell, Chair.
Appearances: L. A. Richmond and J. Almeida for the applicants Harold F. Caley, David A. McKee, Frank Manoni and Jerry Kinsella for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1To make this decision easier to read, the applicant union will sometimes be referred to as "Local 1072", the respondent union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, will sometimes be referred to as the "parent international union", and sections 145 to 150 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 will sometimes be referred to, collectively, as the "Bill 80" provisions. Trade unions that meet the requirements of section 126 of the Act, (i.e. trade unions "that according to established trade union practice pertain to the construction industry") will sometimes be referred to simply as "construction unions".
I - Introduction: what this case is about - an overview
2In December 1996, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ("the parent international union") assumed supervision and control over its Local 1072. In industrial relations parlance, the parent union put Local 1072 "under trusteeship". The parent union suspended the autonomy of the local union and removed or restricted the authority of the local union officers. (See section 89 of the Act, which contemplates that a trusteeship that has been unilaterally imposed can remain in place for one year, and can be extended for a further year, with the consent of the Labour Relations Board.)
3The applicants assert that the trusteeship was imposed "without just cause", and, accordingly, was contrary to section 149 of the Labour Relations Act. Section 149 was added to the Act in 1993 as part of what are commonly referred to as the "Bill 80 amendments". Section 149 reads as follows:
- (1) A parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, assume supervision or control of or otherwise interfere with a local trade union directly or indirectly in such a way that the autonomy of the local trade union is affected.
(2) A parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, remove from office, change the duties of an elected or appointed official of a local trade union or impose a penalty on such an official or on a member of a local trade union.
(3) On an application relating to this section, when deciding whether there is just cause, the Board shall consider the trade union constitution but is not bound by it and shall consider such other factors as it considers appropriate.
(4) If the Board determines that an action described in subsection (I) was taken with just cause, the Board may make such orders and give such directions as it considers appropriate, including orders respecting the continuation of supervision or control of the local trade union.
4The applicants complain that the parent union took over Local 1072 contrary to section 149(1), and dealt with union official Joe Almeida contrary to section 149(2).
5The parent union replies that there was ample cause for the actions that it took, because the affairs of Local 1072 were in disarray. The parent union claims that Local 1072 has been mismanaged for some time, and that, as a result, the Local had lost large groupings of members to termination applications or "raids" by other trade unions. The parent union points out, for example, that the 700 members of Local 1072 working at Ontario Store Fixtures, have deserted the Carpenters' Union in favour of the United Steelworkers of America, so that, in the result, Local 1072 lost its largest bargaining unit.
6In counsel's submission, these members were dissatisfied with the quality of service that was being provided by Local 1072 - and so was the parent union. That is why the trusteeship was necessary. The parent union submits that Mr. Almeida is not a member or officer of Local 1072, but even if he was, there was ample justification for taking over the Local, to ensure that its affairs are conducted properly.
7More fundamentally though, the parent union contends that Bill 80 has no application to a so-called "shop local" like Local 1072. In counsel's submission, Bill 80 only applies to "construction trade unions", and Local 1072 is not a "construction union"