Ontario Labour Relations Board
0250-00-G International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1590, Applicant v. Bradscot (MCL) Ltd., Responding Party v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059, Intervenor.
1003-00-M International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1590, Applicant v. Bradscot (MCL) Ltd., Responding Party.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 25, 2000
1The Board is in receipt of a letter dated July 21, 2000 from counsel for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1590 (the “Painters”) in which he expresses a number of complaints arising out of the Board’s July 10, 2000 decision.
2Counsel takes umbrage with the Board’s suggestion that it appeared that the Painters did not object to initiating the application. Counsel’s complaint appears to be with his client having to assume some legal onus and/or having to assume an “administrative burden”. Firstly, the manner in which the sector dispute application came to be filed is well documented in the decision. To suggest that the Board’s accepting the Painters’ June 27, 2000 letter as having initiated the application and identifying the Painters as the applicant casts an onus upon it, is without foundation. Secondly, as counsel is well aware, the Board no longer serves parties with pleadings in any form of application that is filed with the Board. Regardless of the type of application, all parties are required to perform their own service. The “administrative burden” that is being imposed on the Painters is not a result of the Board’s July 10, 2000 decision but a result of a change in the manner in which the Board requires service to be affected in all applications. Further, the administrative burden imposed on the Painters as a result of assuming the role of applicant is only marginally greater than that of any other party. All entities that wish to participate in the matter will have to serve their response on all of the affected parties and the applicant.
3Counsel expresses considerable consternation with the Board’s failure to provide a mechanism whereby the parties can challenge entities which one of the other parties proposes to place on the list of affected parties. Counsel sets out a quote from Harbridge and Cross Ltd., [1979] OLRB Rep. April 313 as establishing who has standing in a sector dispute.
4Harbridge and Cross Ltd. indicates that notice is to be given to:
… a person who employs employees who are working or who will work on the project; trade unions or council of trade unions which have bargaining rights for employees who are working or will work on the project….
From the grievance referral, it would appear that the project at which the work in issue was performed is now complete or near completion. Thus, there would be a relatively short list of persons who are entitled to notice of the application. Further, as pointed out by counsel for the Painters, it appears that a number of entities, such as the engineers and consultants, that appear on the list prepared by the employer, are not entitled to notice.
5The Registrar of the Board is hereby directed to appoint a Labour Relations Officer to meet with the parties for the purpose of creating a list of entities who are to be served with notice of the sector dispute application. If the parties are unable to agree on a list of entities, the Labour Relations Officer is to advise the Registrar to schedule a teleconference with a vice-chair of the Board for the purpose of hearing the parties’ submissions and making a determination with respect to what entities are appropriately on the list.
6Clearly, it will be impossible for the service and filing deadlines set out in the Board’s July 10, 2000 decision to be met. Following conclusion of the list of affected parties, a new Board decision will have to be issued setting out new service and filing deadlines.
7I am not seized.
“D. L. Gee”
for the Board