Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 5 v. Hyde Park Masonry Limited
1072-00-G Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 5, Applicant v. Hyde Park Masonry Limited, Responding Party v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 6, Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 28, 2000
1This is an application for the referral of a grievance to arbitration pursuant to section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (the "Act"). The applicant (“Local 5”) has filed a grievance against the responding party in respect of work performed in the residential sector of the construction industry in Windsor Ontario. It relies on a collective agreement covering bricklaying which contains a geographic scope clause covering residential projects in and out of the Counties of Middlesex, Elgin, Oxford, Huron, Perth and Bruce. The intervenor (“Local 6”) has filed an intervention. It states that its members were the persons who performed the bricklaying work in question under a residential collective agreement covering “all non-ICI construction projects in Essex and Kent Counties”. The applicant and responding party had agreed on a date for the hearing of this matter (August 24, 2000) before the intervention was filed. The intervenor seeks an adjournment of this date as counsel is scheduled to appear before the Board on another matter that day, as is his client.
2The Board does not agree that this matter should await the decision of the Board in Board File No. 2784-98-R. It is conceivable that the decision will be released before that date in any event. However, it is not apparent on the file that the issues raised in this file are dependent on the outcome in Board File No. 2784-98-R or that the subject matter of the grievance is covered by the agreement of January 4, 1999.
3On the other hand, the intervenor was clearly entitled to notice in its own right and (if persons were still at work on the site) as agent for the employees whose removal from the site is sought. It is not apparent from the file that the applicant would have been unaware of the intervenor’s interest, and hence its right to notice. If not, common courtesy would dictate an attempt to accommodate counsel’s request. The parties are directed to consider the intervenor’s request for an adjournment and advise the Board on or before 12:00 noon on August 2, 2000.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board