[1997] OLRB REP. MAY/JUNE 527
0831-96-R; 0834-96-U IBEW Construction Council of Ontario, and IBEW Local 773, Applicant v. Pietro Electric Limited, Responding Party
BEFORE: Robert Herman, Alternate Chair.
APPEARANCES: Craig Flood and Andrew Stokes for the applicant; Arthur Barat, Pietro D'Agostini, Guiliano Querqui, Anthony Laposta and Mario Barberio for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 2, 1997
1This is an application for certification, in which the applicant relies upon the provisions of section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and a related complaint filed pursuant to section 96 of the Act, in which the applicant/complainant alleges that the responding employer has breached sections 70, 72, 76 and 86 of the Act. The alleged unfair labour practices relate to the discharges of two union supporters, and a wage increase given during the statutory "freeze".
The Facts
2Pietro D'Agostini started Pietro Electric Limited ("Pietro Electric") around 1969. Pietro Electric is a relatively small electrical contracting company working in both the residential and the industrial, commercial and institutional ("ICI") sectors of the construction industry in and around Windsor, Ontario. Although the Board was not provided with evidence of' the ownership arrangement with respect to Pietro Electric, it is clear that D'Agostini is the effective owner of the company, and acts as its chief executive officer and general manager. It is his business, and he runs every aspect of it.
3Since approximately 1970, the Christian Labour Association of Canada, Local 53, ("CLAC") has been bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit in question, apprentice and journeymen electricians employed by Pietro Electric, At the time the incidents that follow occurred, there were approximately eight to eleven employees in the bargaining unit, most of them apprentice electricians.
4For some time, the applicant (the "IBEW") had been unhappy that Pietro Electric was represented by a local of CLAC. The IBEW believed that the IBEW was the appropriate union to represent apprentice and journeymen electricians, and it was intent upon trying to obtain bargaining rights for Pietro Electric. At one point in February, 1996, while CLAC still represented employees, the IBEW picketed a major project in Windsor that the company was working on, an ICI electrical installation job in the new Windsor Star building. The picketers complained about Pietro Electric working on the project, since the company was not an IBEW company, and since the IBEW did not view CLAC as a "real construction trade union".
5The picketing created some concern amongst the employees of Pietro Electric, and they wanted their union, CLAC, to help. In what was a telling response to the disruption caused by the picketing, the employees did not themselves contact CLAC. Guiliano Querqui, the company's working foreman, was one of two company employees working on the Windsor Star project when the picketing took place. Querqui asked D'Agostini to phone CLAC, to see why there was an IBEW picket line around the site, and to see what CLAC could do to assist the men. D'Agostini did contact CLAC but even so, no one from CLAC showed up at the site or spoke to the men until several days after the picket line appeared.
6This delayed response by CLAC upset the employees, and suggested to them that CLAC was not properly representing their interests or protecting their rights. Any potential consternation about CLAC was no doubt enhanced by comments made by D'Agostini around the same time. He told at least some of his men that Pietro Electric was unable to compete if something didn't happen. He told them that they all had to do something about the situation, because if Pietro Electric couldn't compete, it would have to close its doors. He told them that he couldn't effectively bid on IBEW jobs, nor could the company survive another three years with a collective agreement with CLAC, and if this continued, the company would have to close down.
7Querqui arranged for a meeting of all the employees, to see about taking steps to decertify CLAC, The meeting was held in the company's office, for which Querqui had the keys. At that meeting, attended by most, if not all, of the employees, one of the employees advised the assembled group as to what wages and benefits D'Agostini would be able to pay if CLAC were to be decertified. He spoke to the men as if speaking on behalf of D'Agostini.
8, All the employees except one expressed the view that they wanted to decertify CLAC, Brian Fields, one of the employees later discharged, was alone in his view that the employees ought to continue to have CLAC represent them. It does not appear as if the other discharged employee, Richard Arboleya, was at the meeting, and indeed, it is unclear if he was working for the company at that time, having been laid off previously and not yet recalled.
The collective agreement with CLAC was due to expire at the end of April, 1996, and it included a wage increase, effective as of April 15, 1996. Pietro Electric implemented some, but not all, of the raises as required under the collective agreement,
An application for decertification of CLAC was filed with the Board. There was no evidence led in the instant proceeding which dealt with what the issues were in that decertification application. Accordingly, the Board does not know whether CLAC challenged the decertification or whether any of the events described formed part of the decertification proceedings. In any event, on April 25, 1996, a decertification vote was held. The vote results were seven in favour of decertification, one opposed. Only Fields voted against the decertification, and although the vote was conducted by secret ballot, all the employees were aware of everyone else's views and how they had voted, presumably because they had chosen