Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 491 v. Laborers’ International Union of North America, 2000 CanLII 12894

BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 29, 2000

1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant “local unions” allege that the “parent international union” has contravened sections 145-149 of the Labour Relations Act. These sections are the so-called “Bill 80 provisions” of the Act, which protect local unions (and their members) from unwarranted and inequitable treatment by parent union bodies.

2There were, in fact, several different proceedings filed by the applicant in relation to the situation under review, some of which have now been withdrawn or amended. We do not think that it is necessary to detail these applications here – not least because there may be some outstanding issues respecting whether, or on what terms, the applicants should be permitted to proceed as they now propose, and the rights (if any) of the various parties originally named in these proceedings.

3These are matters which can be considered later, as necessary. For present purposes, it suffices to say that central to the applicants’ concern is the geographic area of Kapuskasing, and the union members who reside/customarily work in that area.

4It seems to be common ground that for many years prior to 1990, the Kapuskasing area and its members fell within the geographic and administrative jurisdiction of (Thunder Bay) Local 607. Around 1990, the parent international union transferred that geographic area and grouping of members to the jurisdiction of Local 491 (Timmins). The parent international union now wishes to transfer it back – which is to say, return the situation to what it was some years ago.

5The applicants claim that this proposed transfer/alteration of their jurisdiction was undertaken improperly and without just cause. The applicants say that the above-mentioned provisions have been contravened. The applicants say that a hearing of 5-10 days will be necessary to deal with their allegations.

6The parent union says that the realignment of the Kapuskasing members is but one facet of a broader and quite sensible restructuring of several northern Ontario locals. The parent union further asserts that this “piece” of the process was undertaken in response to concerns from the Kapuskasing members themselves: who had complaints about their situation, and who, the parent union says, would prefer to be associated with Local 607 as they were before. And, of course, beneath this family quarrel about geographic jurisdiction and membership affiliation, is a concern about access to work opportunities in the Kapuskasing area.

7When the original transfer occurred in 1990, there was no Bill 80 scrutiny, because Bill 80 did not exist. Now it does. However, it is interesting to note that one of the factors which the Board might consider under section 147(3) (relied upon, inter alia, by the applicants) is “the wishes of the members of the local trade unions”. Moreover, it is certainly arguable that the wishes of the Kapuskasing members, as a group, might be relevant in a variety of ways, provided that they could be reliably ascertained. And the typical way that the Board tests employee wishes (in other contexts) is by means of a secret ballot vote.

8Accordingly, the parties are directed to make representations to the Board, in writing, on the following questions:

The desirability of taking a vote to test membership wishes;
The constituency or constituencies in which such vote might be taken;
What vote arrangements might be necessary to facilitate an accurate and expeditious assessment of membership wishes;
The utility of such wishes should the vote be conducted.

9Upon receipt of those representations, the Board may make such determination, or directions or schedule such hearing as it considers appropriate on the basis of the material then before it.

“R. O. MacDowell”

for the Board