[1999] OLRB REP. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1086
1749-99-G United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486, Applicant v. P. A. Richens, Responding Party v. Carpenters' Employer Bargaining Agency, Intervenor
Construction Industry - Construction Industry Grievance - Reconsideration - Board earlier ruling that provincial collective agreement did not entitle union to claim legal costs when successful in grievance concerning hiring of non-union workers - Neither employer nor employer bargaining agency participating in earlier case - Board ruling that issue of significance to industry as a whole and should be determined with participation of employer bargaining agency - Board setting aside its earlier decision and directing that matter be heard afresh - Request for reconsideration allowed
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 22, 1999
This decision concerns a request for reconsideration.
On October 14, 1999 we issued a decision in which we found, in the context of the applicant's grievance concerning the unlawful hiring of non-union employees, that the applicant was not entitled to be paid its reasonable costs under the provisions of Article 9.18 of the provincial collective agreement between the Carpenters Employer Bargaining Agency and the Carpenters' District Council of Ontario ("the collective agreement").
At the time of hearing of the grievance there was no appearance by the responding employer, nor was there, at that stage, any intervention by the Carpenters' Employer Bargaining Agency ("the EBA"). That changed following the applicant's request for reconsideration. On November 11, 1999, the EBA sought leave to intervene in the proceedings.
Any decision concerning this application has implications for the industry as a whole. There has also been some inconsistency by the Board in its interpretation of the provisions of Article 9.18 of the collective agreement. In our view there would be considerable merit in having the issue of the applicant's entitlement to costs under Article 9.18 fully aired, with participation by the EBA. We think the institutional parties would benefit by having the matter considered de novo, with the applicant and the EBA being able to advance full evidence and argument on the matter.
In the circumstances, we reconsider and set aside our decision of October 14. The hearing we conducted prior thereto is to be treated as a nullity. The matter is to be referred afresh to a different panel of the Board. The EBA is joined as an intervenor.
The matter is referred to the Registrar.