United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46 v. Malfar Mechanical Inc.
File No.: 0934-00-G Date: July 12, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Before: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
Appearances: Pierre Sadik, Danny McBride and Dimitri Divittorio for the applicant; no one appeared on behalf of the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 12, 2000
The applicant has referred a grievance in the construction industry to the Board for final and binding determination pursuant to section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). No response was filed by the responding party. On the day scheduled for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the responding party, notwithstanding notice sent to the responding party. I waited until after 10:00 a.m. and then the hearing convened.
I heard the evidence of the applicant’s organizer, Mr. Dimitri Divattorio. The responding party was performing work on a job site at 285 Shuter Street in Toronto. That work involved the rehab of an existing high rise residential building. In a letter dated June 15, 2000 to the applicant, the responding party does not dispute being bound to the collective agreement in question. Rather it asserts that the work of removing old pipes was not required to be performed by members of the applicant. The collective agreement requires that persons performing work covered by the terms of the agreement be members of the applicant. The agreement covers work performed in the high rise residential sector and the applicant’s jurisdiction is generally outlined as that normally related to the plumbing and pipefitting trade.
Mr. Divattorio observed three persons who were not members of the applicant performing work involving the removal of an old hot water heating system and the installation of a new system. He observed them handling welding torches and working alongside and performing the same work as journeymen who were members of the applicant. I am satisfied that this work properly falls within the jurisdiction of the applicant under this collective agreement.
On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the responding party is bound to the collective agreement between the Metropolitan Plumbing and Heating Contractors’ Association and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46 (the “high rise collective agreement”). I am further satisfied that the responding party violated that collective agreement by failing to employ only members of the applicant to perform work covered by the terms of that agreement for the period June 12 to June 15, 2000 inclusive (4 days) and that the applicant is entitled to damages in respect of those violations.
I hereby order Malfar Mechanical Inc. to pay to the applicant the amount of $4721.58 as damages for these violations. This represents an amount of $3972.48 equivalent to the applicable wage package for the period and an amount of $749.00 in costs recoverable by the applicant.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board