Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Metal Tech Systems Inc., 2000 CanLII 12912

3703-99-R Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183, Applicant v. Metal Tech Systems Inc., Responding Party v. Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor.

BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and A. Haward.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 27, 2000

1This is an application for certification in the construction industry in which the Board in its decision of March 21, 2000 asked for additional submissions with respect to a number of issues raised by the applicant.

2Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“Drywall Local 675”) filed an intervention on March 22, 2000. The intervention asserts the Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 (“Local 183”) application should be dismissed without prejudice to the applicant filing a displacement application in accordance with the Board’s Rules. The intervenor provided the Board with a copy of its collective agreement with the employer, Metal Tech Systems Inc. (“Metal Tech”). This collective agreement expires April 30, 2000.

3The applicant, Local 183, takes the position that there is no valid collective agreement between Metal Tech and Drywall Local 675 and that its application should proceed. In the alternative Local 183 submits should there be a valid collective agreement it would be a timely displacement application and asks to amend its bargaining unit to mirror the description in Article 1 of the collective agreement.

4The information provided to the Board confirms the intervenor, Drywall Local 675, served the employer, Metal Tech, and the applicant, Local 183, with the intervention on March 22, 2000.

5Local 183 simply asserts there is no valid collective agreement between Metal Tech and the intervenor. There are no particulars as to why this particular collective agreement is not valid. Drywall Local 675 filed a collective agreement which prima facie is a valid collective agreement.

6The employer has not responded to the intervention. Paragraph 4 of the Board’s decision dated March 21, 2000 sets out the employer’s response indicating that any questions with respect to any claims by another trade union were “N/A”.

7Based on the materials filed with the Board this appears to be a timely displacement application for certification. The purpose of holding votes is to ascertain the wishes of the employees. It is the Board’s view in the particular circumstances the most expeditious way to ascertain the affected employees’ wishes is to treat this application as a displacement application and amend the bargaining unit description to mirror the recognition clause in the intervenor’s collective agreement. Article 1 – Recognition reads as follows:

all onsite construction employees, including without limitation, all carpenters, carpenters’ apprentices, helpers, labourers, welders, construction mechanics and/or technicians, and any other trades persons performing construction work in the Residential sector in the construction industry in the Province of Ontario.

8The membership evidence filed by the applicant states that each employee who signed the membership evidence is applying “…..to become a member of the Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183”. It goes on to say “……hereby authorize the Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 or its representatives, or officers to act for me as collective bargaining agent……” Underneath the heading “APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP” (which is a printed application form) is a hand-written notation “UNIVERSAL WORKERS UNION” followed by the printed words “in the Labourers’ International Union of North America, L.U. No. 183.

9Based on the applicant’s information that the same employees are affected whether it is a displacement vote or a vote based on the original applied for bargaining unit, the Board finds that it appears that forty percent or more of the individuals in the amended bargaining unit proposed by the applicant were members of the applicant on the application date.

10Having regard to what has been filed the Board considers it appropriate to direct that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:

11The vote will be held on March 31, 2000. Vote arrangements are set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Meeting".

12The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision next to the “Notice to Employees of Application for Certification”.

13All individuals who were employed by Metal Tech Systems Inc. and at work in the voting constituency on March 13, 2000 are eligible to vote.

14Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or by the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.

15Paragraph 2 of the Board’s first decision in this matter stated:

“The Board has not yet found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) and 126 of the Act. However, a hearing in this regard has been set in another application for April 11, 2000. Until such time as the applicant has proven status, the ballot box will remain sealed.”

16Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue relating to the application for certification which remains in dispute, other than status disputes, must file a detailed statement of representations and all material facts upon which they rely with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken. Representations with respect to any status dispute must be made in accordance with the directions provided in Information Bulletin No. 9: Status Disputes in Certification Applications in the Construction Industry.

17This matter is referred to the Registrar.

“Inge M. Stamp”

for the Board