2847-97-R I.B.E.W. Construction Council of Ontario, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 773, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1687, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 804, Applicants v. THE FOUNDATION COMPANY OF CANADA LIMITED consisting of: The Foundation Company of Canada Limited, A. D. Ross & Company Limited, Foundation (Western) Limited, Foundation International Ltd., Canadian Foundation Company Ltd., Cliffside Utility Contractors Ltd., Banister Continental Enterprises Limited, Banister Majestic Inc.; BFC CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. consisting of: BFC Construction Group Inc., Banister Foundation Construction Group Inc., The Foundation Company Inc., Foundation Building (West) Inc., Foundation Nuclear Managers, Inc., 955383 Ontario Limited, Cliffside Traffic Technology Inc., Cunningham-Limp Canada Inc., Hallmark Pipelines Inc., The Jackson-Lewis Company Inc., Majestic Contractors Limited; BFC INDUSTRIAL – NICHOLLS-RADTKE LIMITED consisting of: Nicholls-Radtke Limited and BFC CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Responding Parties v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council, Intervenor.
0437-99-R International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721, Applicant v. The Foundation Company of Canada Ltd., A.D. Ross & Company Ltd., B.F.C. Construction Corporation, B.F.C. Construction Group Inc., Banister Foundation Construction Group Inc., Banister Foundation Inc., Banister Continental Ltd., The Foundation Company Inc., B.F.C. Civil, B.F.C. Buildings, The Jackson Lewis Company Inc., B.F.C. Industrial-Nicholls Radtke Ltd., Banister Majestic Inc., Banister Inc., Pitts Engineering Construction Ltd., B.F.C. Industrial, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 9, 2000
These are two applications under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 as amended (the “Act”) seeking declaratory and other relief in respect of the responding parties. Counsel for the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721 (“Local 721”) requested that the Board list the application in Board File No. 0437-99-R for hearing. He also requested that the Board consolidate the application in 0437-99-R with the application in Board File No. 2847-97-R that was made by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 773, 1687, 353 and 804 and the I.B.E.W. Construction Council of Ontario (collectively, the “IBEW”).
Board File Nos. 2847-97-R and 0437-99-R involve the same responding parties. Counsel for Local 721 suggests that issues in its application and in the application made by the IBEW are similar. Counsel for Local 721 is also now counsel for the IBEW in Board File No. 2847-97-R. (The Board notes that the IBEW had other counsel prepare and file the application.) Therefore, he submits that these two matters should be consolidated as having both cases heard together will save the Board and the parties time and resources and will eliminate the possibility of conflicting decisions. Counsel for Local 721 and the IBEW advises that the IBEW consents to having the two applications consolidated.
Counsel for corporate responding parties opposes the consolidation request. He points out that the application in Board File No. 2847-97-R also involves an intervenor (the Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council) who is not involved in the proceeding in Board File No. 0437-99-R. He suggests that there are therefore significant issues in the IBEW application that are not present in the application made by Local 721.
The Board had listed the application in Board File No. 2947-97-R for hearing on November 21 and 22, 2000 at the request of counsel for the IBEW. Local 721 requests that its application in Board File No. 0437-99-R also be listed for hearing. Counsel for Local 721 makes a compelling argument for having these matters at least heard together, if not consolidated. It appears to us that the determination of whether these two applications should be consolidated, or be heard together or be heard one after the other or be heard by two different panels of the Board is best determined by the panel of the Board that is seized with these matters. In order to allow a panel of the Board to make that determination, the application in Board File No. 0437-99-R is referred to the Registrar to be listed for hearing together with the application in Board File No.
2847-97-R on November 21 and 22, 2000. The parties may make, if they are so advised, representations to the Board at that time as to how these two matters should best proceed.
- This panel of the Board is not seized with these matters.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board