[1999] OLRB REP. JULY/AUGUST 755
2561-98-JD United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1946, Applicant v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 473; Wheelwright Construction Inc.; and Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, Responding Parties
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and A. Haward.
APPEARANCES: David McKee and Brian McKnight for the applicant; J. Raso and Alan McQuillan for Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 473; Adam Scott for Wheelwright Construction Inc.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 9, 1999
1This is a jurisdictional dispute filed pursuant to section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"). A consultation with the parties was held by the Board on Friday, March 19, 1999.
2The applicant United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1946 (the "Carpenters") and the responding party Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 473 (the Sheet Metal Workers") filed briefs with the Board prior to the consultation. The responding party Electrical Power Systems Construction Association (the "EPSCA") advised the Board it would not participate in the proceedings. The responding party Wheelwright Construction Inc. ("Wheelwright") did not file any materials with the Board but did attend at the consultation.
3The work in dispute is the erection of a pre-engineered building, 50' x 76' x 19' at Highbury Transmission Station in London, Ontario (Board Area 3) and is subject to the EPSCA agreements. The work was done by a 50-50 composite crew of ironworkers and carpenters. All work functions were done by both trades interchangeably.
4It is apparent from the materials filed and the parties' submissions at the consultation that factors such as skills and ability and safety were neutral factors. For the purpose of this decision the focus is on area practice in Board Area 3 in the EPSCA sector and the employer practice.
5The Sheet Metal Workers' assert the work should have been performed by a 50-50 composite crew of ironworkers and sheet metal workers' or a composite crew with the ironworkers doing their structural steel work and the sheet metal workers' performing the work that relates to their work of installing all metal siding, roofs, etc. and the Carpenters installing doors and windows. The work in dispute falls within the overlap of work performed by a number of trades.
6The Carpenters submit the Board should not overturn Wheelwright's assignment. The employer practice favours the applicant. There are no other factors that should cause the Board to overturn the assignment.
7The Sheet Metal Workers assert the employer's practice is mixed and does not favour either union. However the area practice in Board Area 3 favours the Sheet Metal Workers. There are four such installations in Board Area 3 done by Sheet Metal Workers in the last few years. The Carpenters have no area practice in Board Area 3. The Sheet Metal Workers suggested the Board look outside Board Area 3 where 12 such installations were done by sheet metal workers. This decision is limited to Board Area 3 and the Board is not prepared to give any weight to any area practice outside the relevant area.
8The employer made submissions at the consultation with respect to company documents filed by the Carpenters in their brief. Some of the jobs referred to took place in the 1980's and the information is somewhat lacking. The company's representative advised he obtained the information from the files and tried to put together the information as best he could. However he also made it clear that his company's policy and preference was to use a 50-50 composite crew of ironworkers and carpenters to install or erect pre-engineered buildings.
9Essentially it comes down to this - do four installations of pre-engineered buildings on BNGS create an "area practice" in Board Area 3 that would be so overwhelming as to cause the Board to overturn the employer's assignment? The Board is not persuaded that it does. The employer has indicated its preference by assigning the work to the ironworkers and carpenters on a 50-50 composite crew doing the work of both trades interchangeably.
10In the circumstances the assignment of the work to a composite crew of ironworkers and carpenters is upheld.