1095-00-G Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059, Applicant v. Clifford Masonry Limited and Clifford Restoration Limited, Responding Parties.
3502-99-JD Clifford Restoration Limited, Applicant v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (the Brick Employee Bargaining Agency, formerly Ontario Provincial Conference of International Union of Brick and Allied Craftsmen) and Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 5 (formerly, International Union of Brick & Allied Craftsmen, Local 5) and Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059 and Operative Plasterers Cement Masons and Restoration Steeplejacks International Association of the United States and Canada, Local 598 and Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1946 and Tower Scaffold Services Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and
A. Haward.
APPEARANCES: Andrea Bowker, Jim MacKinnon and Doug Mahon for the applicant; Walter Thornton and Fergus Tyrrell for Clifford Restoration Limited.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 28, 2000
1This is a referral of a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (the “Act”) concerning the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of a collective agreement to the Board for final and binding determination.
2We heard the submissions of the parties regarding how the hearing of this matter should proceed at the conclusion of which we issued the following directions:
notice of this grievance shall forthwith be given by the applicant to the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masonry, Local 598 (“Local 598”). The applicant shall provide a copy of the pleadings (not already received by Local 598) and of the letter to the responding party’s counsel from the applicant’s counsel dated July 26, 2000;
Local 598 must file an intervention, if any, if it wishes to participate in these proceedings by Wednesday, August 2, 2000;
the applicant shall specify by August 2, 2000 those portions of its claim in respect of the St. Paul’s Cathedral work which fall within the consideration of the pending jurisdiction dispute under Board File No. 3502-99-JD (which portions would therefore be adjourned sine die pending the disposition of the jurisdictional dispute). The portions so incorporated within the jurisdictional dispute will then be dealt with as part of that dispute and the parties are directed to make the appropriate amendments to their pleadings in that matter;
the applicant shall specify by August 2, 2000 those portions of its claim in respect of the St. Paul’s Cathedral work which can proceed without regard to the jurisdictional dispute, with details of the work referred to and the estimated damages claimed;
the responding party shall provide by August 2, 2000 the following particulars:
(a) all contractual relations in respect of the work at 622 Waterloo Road, including details of all subcontractors and the work assigned to each of them and by whom;
(b) the detailed basis upon which the responding party contends that the work at 622 Waterloo Road is not ICI work;
(c) details of the work being done at 622 Waterloo Road.
3The application is adjourned to August 17, 2000.
4This panel is not seized.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board