Court File and Parties
3915-97-R Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Tiberini Construction and Holding Limited, A.R.G. Construction Enterprise Inc, Royal Concrete Encased Technologies Inc. (“ROYCET”), Responding Parties v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council and Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 and 506, Intervenors.
APPEARANCES: David McKee and Walter Tracogna for the applicant; Michael Horan and Galli Tiberini for Tiberini Construction and Holding Limited and A.R.G. Construction Enterprise Inc.; Joseph Liberman and John Colussi for Royal Concrete Encased Technologies Inc. (“ROYCET”); John Moszynski and Armando Camara for the Intervenors.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 7, 2000
Decision
1This is an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) for a declaration that the responding parties are bound to the Carpenters’ Provincial Collective Agreement.
2The applicant (“Carpenters”) asserts there has been a sale of a business by Tiberini Construction & Holdings Limited (“Tiberini Limited”) to A.R.G. Construction Enterprise Inc. (“A.R.G.”) and Royal Concrete Encased Technologies Inc. (“Roycet”) and/or the responding parties operate associated or related businesses or activities under common control or direction.
3The Board heard the evidence from Mr. John Colussi on behalf of Roycet. Mr. Galliano Tiberini testified on behalf of A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited. Mr. Walter Tracogna and Mr. Gannaro Garofolo testified on behalf of the applicant. The core of the evidence relevant to the proceeding before the Board is not in dispute.
4At the outset counsel for A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited agreed that these two entities are related employers. For the purpose of this decision these two entities will be referred to as the “A.R.G. Group” or “A.R.G.” and “Tiberini Limited”.
5It is not disputed that at some point Mr. Garafalo was told he could no longer work for the responding party unless he became a member of the Labourers’. Mr. Garafalo indicated he did not wish to join the Labourers but wanted to remain with the Carpenters union. Mr. Garafalo had been a member of the Labourers union previously and was currently collecting a pension from the Labourers union.
6The name “ROYCET” is a registered trademark of the responding party Royal Concrete Encased Technologies Inc. and is used in advertising of innovative wall systems. Roycet does not manufacture construction systems. Roycet buys panels or panel members from Royal Building Systems (Cdn.) Limited (“RBS”). RBS does not use the tradename ROYCET.
7In this decision the reference to “Roycet” is with respect to the company, Royal Concrete Encased Technologies Inc. The reference “ROYCET” is with respect to the use of the trademark or the wall systems.
8A.R.G. commenced operating as a general and a forming contractor in 1966. Between 1966 and January 31, 1991 there were a number of A.R.G. corporate entities, using the name with slight variations, in the general contracting and forming business. However, since 1991 none of the earlier entities have been active. A.R.G. is bound to the Labourers’ provincial collective agreement and a collective agreement with Labourers’ Local 183.
9Tiberini Limited was incorporated in June of 1969 and except for a period from 1980 to 1983, operated exclusively as a holding company until 1994. During the 1980 to 1983 period Tiberini Limited did some formwork under the Formwork Council of Ontario collective agreement. As of 1994 Tiberini Limited operated as a carpentry subcontractor in the construction industry in addition to operating as a holding company.
10A “peace treaty” was signed between Labourers’ Local 183 and the Carpenters’ Local 27. As a result of that “peace treaty” A.R.G. was no longer able to perform certain ICI work using labourers exclusively. Tiberini Limited signed a voluntary recognition agreement with the Carpenters’ union in order to have carpenters available to work on ICI projects. Tiberini Limited became bound to the carpenters provincial ICI collective agreement as of May 1994.
11At the time the Carpenters signed this voluntary recognition agreement with Tiberini Limited the bargaining rights for A.R.G. were held by the Labourers. It is not disputed that the Carpenters union was aware of the Labourers’ bargaining rights vis-a-vis A.R.G.
12A.R.G. has performed work as both a general and a forming contractor. Since 1994 it has engaged Tiberini Limited as a carpentry subcontractor to perform traditional carpentry work on various ICI projects. A.R.G. has also performed work on projects where it has not used Tiberini Limited as a subcontractor.
13As of November 1996 A.R.G. has used its own unionized forces comprised exclusively of members of the Labourers’ union in connection with the installation of ROYCET panels. These panels were purchased from the responding party, Roycet.
14In November of 1996 a Joint Venture agreement was entered into between Royal Building Systems (Cdn) Limited and Galliano Tiberini and Galanda Building Systems Inc. resulting in the formation of Roycet.
15John Colussi became its general manager in 1997 and runs the day to day business of Roycet. The evidence clearly shows that Roycet is operated as a sales and marketing company for ROYCET wall systems. Roycet does not do any installation of ROYCET panels nor does it employ any construction workers. The technical staff and office staff is hired by Mr. Colussi. The evidence of Mr. Tiberini and Mr. Colussi is that Roycet does not intend to compete with the customers it is selling ROYCET panels to or compete with its customers for the installation work.
16Roycet does the estimating for its jobs, it designs, deals with the building code, with structural engineers, produces shop drawings. Mr. Colussi makes cold calls to sell the product. The work is then contracted or subcontracted to A.R.G. to perform the installation. Roycet warrants the product if anything goes wrong. Mr. Colussi does not require Mr. Tiberini’s or Mr. De Zen’s approval for bids, estimates or cold calls.
17Mr. Galliano Tiberini is a 25% shareholder of the joint venture Roycet. The product, ROYCET wall systems, is a product controlled by Mr. Vic De Zen. Mr. De Zen, President of Royal Building Systems (Cdn) Limited, owns 75% of the shares of the joint venture and holds the patent for the ROYCET wall systems.
18Mr. Tiberini attends meetings to obtain government funding for these innovative wall systems and attends at Roycet’s office on a regular basis.
19The ROYCET panels are made from extruded polymer with internal insulation. The original system involved the erection of the extruded plastic members on site. When all of the members were fastened, plumbed and leveled, concrete was poured into them. They were used for loadbearing walls and internal partition walls which precast is not used for.
20When the system was first developed it had the appearance of a forming system. As such Labourers and Carpenters were used in the early development stage to install this system.
21As the system developed because of site installation problems (i.e. the concrete freezing in the winter and the concrete oozing out of the joints and being very hard to clean) the installation methods changed. The new systems were delivered to the site as a finished product similar to precast panels.
22As the new product more closely resembled precast, Mr. Tiberini decided that Local 506 will begin to do all the installation work. He tells the three Local 27 members, if you want to continue to do the work you will have to join Local 506 of the Labourers.
Summaries of the arguments made by the parties:
A.R.G. Group – Argument.
23Counsel takes the position that none of the above named responding parties are in the same business. Counsel submits there is no common direction and control as between the A.R.G. Group and Roycet.
24Counsel for the A.R.G. Group submits the applicant wants to expand its bargaining rights for a carpenter subcontractor to cover a general contractor and then take a quantum leap from there to a company that is involved in sales and marketing and does not do its own installation.
25The facts are not in dispute. There is no contrary evidence from the applicant with respect to relevant evidence. The A.R.G. entities were started by G. Tiberini’s father in the mid-60s. They carried on business as a forming and general contractor to date. There has been a collective bargaining relationship with the Labourers Local 183 since 1974. In 1994 A.R.G. started to employ members of Labourers Local 506 to do formwork in the ICI sector.
26Tiberini Limited was primarily a holding company until 1994 when it entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with the Carpenters Union in consideration of arrangements made in the ICI sector (the “peace treaty”). Since 1994 Tiberini Limited has been used exclusively as an in-house carpenter sub-contractor on A.R.G. projects.
27Counsel points out that Tiberini Limited’s business volume has remained constant and the contributions to the Carpenters’ benefit plans has remained constant.
28Counsel submits the evidence of Mr. John Colussi is that Roycet has never installed and has no intention to install any ROYCET panels. Although the Joint Venture was entered into for the sale, distribution, installation and servicing of products, no panels have been installed by Roycet.
29The business of Roycet is sales and marketing. The business of A.R.G. is that of a general contractor. The business of Tiberini Limited is that of a carpenter subcontractor. Counsel submits Roycet stands alone quite apart from the A.R.G.Group’s interests. It is located separately and run by Mr. Colussi.
30There is no dimunition of the business of A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited. The applicant is trying to expand its bargaining rights where none existed before.
31Counsel submits these are different businesses, there is no common direction and control and the Board should not exercise its discretion.
32Counsel cited the following cases in support of his position that the Board should not grant the declarations requested by the applicant:
Arbis Construction Ltd., [1983] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1959; The Charming Hostess Inc, [1982] OLRB Rep. April 536; Yola Construction Ltd., [1990] OLRB Rep. March 368; Jen-Ry Utility Contracting Company Limited, [1984} OLRB Rep. Dec. 1724; Landmark Contracting Ltd., [1990] OLRB Rep. June 660; Dobben Group Inc., [1996] OLRB Rep. February 57; The John Hayman & Sons Company Limited, [1984] OLRB Rep. June 822; Capricorn Acoustics & Drywall Ltd., [1986] OLRB Rep. March 308; Ainsworth Electric Co. Limited, [1993] OLRB Rep. September 817; Century Store Fixtures Ltd., [1990] OLRB Rep. November 1119; Acto Builders (Eastern) Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. June 465.
33Counsel submits there is no purpose to be served by making a section 1(4) declaration. The Carpenters are seeking bargaining rights where none existed before. It would lead to on-going litigation between the carpenters and the labourers everytime ROYCET panels are installed.
Roycet - Argument
34On behalf of Roycet Counsel adopts the submissions made by counsel for A.R.G. Group insofar as they affect Roycet.
35Royal Building Systems (Cdn) Limited engineers and manufactures the panels but is not involved in the installation. The Royal building systems are marketed to the industry through a company called Roycet which is a joint venture between Royal Building Systems, a company which is not engaged in the construction industry, and for which the carpenters do not have bargaining rights, and Galanda Building Systems Inc., a company of Mr. Galliano Tiberini’s, again for which the carpenters have no bargaining rights.
36The name ROYCET is advertised on jobsites as an “innovative wall system”. Products are advertised on jobsites by suppliers as a marketing tool.
37Counsel submits this is an issue over bargaining rights and work jurisdiction. The applicant needs to get A.R.G. and/or Roycet in order to get bargaining rights. The issue before the Board is not whether this product is like precast. It is a new product. The issue is not whether it belongs to the carpenters or the labourers. Counsel for Roycet submits it belongs to Roycet to sell, market and distribute.
38We are looking for common control of labour relations. Whether Royal Building Systems benefits more than Tiberini Limited is not the issue. The real control is through Royal Group Technologies Inc. Roycet operates out of its own premises, has its own telephone, there is no exchange of employees.
39There are no Board decisions saying if you run a construction company you cannot have an investment somewhere in a product in the same industry. This is a two-step process for the applicant. First it must get A.R.G. and then Roycet.
40The company that controls Roycet is the same company that makes the product. Mr. Tiberini brought some technical expertise but it is Royal Building that gave the seed to this operation.
41Counsel for Roycet cited the following cases in support of Roycet’s position:
Farquhar Construction Limited, [1978] OLRB Rep. Oct. 914; Dominion Stores Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. June 506; Ainsworth Electric Co. Limited, [1993] OLRB Rep. Sept. 817; Federated Building Maintenance Company Limited, [1985] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1585;
42In addition Counsel for Roycet referred to Ainsworth Electric Co. Limited (supra), The Charming Hostess Inc. (supra). Counsel for Roycet takes the position that the last part of paragraph 37 of Ainsworth (supra) is in essence the answer.
43The joint venture agreement allows Roycet to install the product. However the evidence is that it has not installed the product and has no intention of installing the product. There is no erosion of bargaining rights.
44Counsel submits the application for a section 1(4) declaration as against Roycet should be dismissed.
Labourers’ – Argument.
45Counsel on behalf of the Labourers Union adopts and relies on the submissions made by Roycet and A.R.G. Group. Further counsel takes the position this application should be dismissed. No basis has been made out on which the Board can grant the orders requested by the applicant.
46Counsel submits the Labourers also have an interest in protecting their bargaining rights. The Labourers are satisfied from the evidence that its bargaining rights are not threatened by Roycet. They do not carry on business in the construction industry. They do not build things at the site. If they did the Labourers would be interested. It is very clear that with respect to Roycet there is no prima facie or other case before the Board.
47Counsel for the Labourers asserts the installation of ROYCET panels is work performed by members of the Labourers pursuant to their provincial collective agreement with A.R.G. The intervenor submits the installation of ROYCET prefabricated panels does not replace formwork but rather is a variation of and a replacement for the traditional precast concrete panel wall systems which have always been installed on an “all-employee” basis by the members of the Labourers’ union.
48The Carpenters’ limited bargaining rights for the ICI are not threatened by corporations who do not carry on business in the construction industry or any sector of it.
49Counsel submits with respect to A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited this is a more complicated issue. The Board must decide whether the arrangements worked out by the parties at the time under circumstances of which they were aware, should now be set aside.
50The history of the bargaining rights of the A.R.G. entities is set out in the Labourers' brief. A.R.G. was certified in 1974 for all employees engaged in concrete forming.
51As a result of the “peace treaty” between Local 183 and Local 27 in 1994 certain contractors who had been doing ICI work with Local 183 were no longer in a position to do that. Some of those companies signed agreements with Local 27. A.R.G. Group employs labourers. Tiberini Limited employs carpenters as a sub-contractor through a voluntary recognition agreement. This arrangement made sense as the labourers held bargaining rights for all employees engaged in concrete forming.
52Counsel takes the position that the Carpenters took the agreement with Tiberini Limited because they knew the bargaining rights for A.R.G. were held by the Labourers. The Carpenters were aware of the existence of A.R.G. and bought into this arrangement with the full knowledge of the existence of A.R.G. and its bargaining rights with the Labourers.
53Where is the mischief? Where is the problem? Did the employer fail to carry through on the arrangement? The answer is no. Tiberini Limited continued to get sub-contracts from A.R.G. and continued to employ members of the Carpenter’s union to do their work. Counsel submits what happened here is a work assignment that is being disputed.
54Counsel for the intervenor submits the Carpenters have seized on A.R.G.’s response to their grievance, that they do not have a collective agreement, by saying we have to get bargaining rights for A.R.G. even though originally they accepted they would not be getting bargaining rights. Looking at the assignment of a particular work is not a basis under the Act for a finding under section 1(4)/69.
55The intervenor Labourers submit that the only grounds advanced by the applicant to grant the relief in their application is that A.R.G. assigned the installation of the ROYCET panels to members of the labourers rather than the carpenters. The intervenors take the position that the assignment of this work to the labourers should not affect the exercise of the Board’s discretion under s. 1(4) of the Act, in the absence of a determination under section 99 of the Act that this assignment was incorrect and should be overturned. The Board (differently constituted) declined to order the applicant to file a section 99 application before proceeding with this application.
Carpenters – Argument.
56Counsel for the applicant Carpenters agreed with counsel for the other parties on what the issues are in this case. Counsel submits the facts are relatively straight forward.
57Mr. GallianoTiberini developed a new construction technique. Two unions claim the right to perform the work, this would naturally be a jurisdictional dispute. If Tiberini Limited were the corporate vehicle used that is how it would be resolved. However it was A.R.G. which is clearly a related employer.
58A grievance was filed and the response indicates that you do not have a collective agreement. That is a complete answer to the grievance. It is usually a complete answer to a jurisdictional dispute.
59There are two cases here. One is the case with Tiberini Limited and A.R.G. which stands on its own. The second is the related employer application between that group and Roycet which is a different case for the exercise of the Board’s discretion which you may find remains after dealing with the issue between A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited.
60There are two corporations (A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited) and an acknowledgement they are under common control and direction. Mr. Galliano Tiberini testified that he runs both corporations out of the same office. Tiberini Limited is an asset holding company. A.R.G. takes on the operating risks. The assets in Tiberini Limited are shielded. This is one business that employs people through two corporate entities or does so on every ICI job which requires carpenters.
61There is no dispute about the origin of bargaining rights. A.R.G. started as a house-basement contractor bound to the Labourers collective agreement. There is no cross-over clause in 1979 but there is in the 1989 collective agreement. Tiberini Limited had some work in the early 1980’s and signed two short form agreements binding it to the Formwork Council agreements.
62Then the “peace treaty” is signed in the mid 90’s and Mr. Tiberini realizes he had to have collective agreements with Labourers Local 506, Carpenters Local 27 and Ironworkers Local 721. His explanation for the use of Tiberini is a bit odd. He did not want to sign an agreement with A.R.G. because of what he perceived to be conflicting agreement obligations. Counsel for the applicant submits the Board should not give too much weight to that. There were already bargaining rights for all employees in concrete forming with Tiberini Limited. If he had signed the formwork agreement ICI work was not going to be performed by Labourers Local 183. It would be Local 506 after that point in time.
63The collective agreement between Tiberini Limited and the Labourers binds it to the pre-cast and demolition agreements. The same agreements were signed with A.R.G. in 1995.
64Counsel states after the agreements are signed Mr. Tiberini says A.R.G. has agreements for the residential sector and Tiberini Limited for the ICI sector. Mr. Tiberini testified the reason was because of the situation brought about by the unions. Fair enough. It is how the businesses operate from then on. A.R.G. is the operating company. Tiberini Limited has no job list. It is essentially one business. In the ICI sector there are two corporations which do the work of one contractor doing the work of three or four trades.
65Counsel submits so long as those corporations operated that way everyone is content. As is obvious from the application the carpenters were not aware of the details of how it worked.
66Next is the ROYCET system. It is a system Mr. Tiberini was instrumental in developing and he should be proud of it. He took an idea, experimented and took some real chances and it paid off. The system works well and is profitable. ROYCET forms are erected onsite and then filled with concrete. They are used for loadbearing walls and internal partition walls which precast is not used for.
67Counsel takes the position that during the development stage everyone says yes it looks like forming and they used labourers and carpenters. Then at some point Mr. Tiberini decides it is more like precast. He then goes to three members of Local 27 and says if you want to continue to do this work you have to join Local 506 of the Labourers. There is clearly a claim that can be made by both trades. It has some characteristics of precast except it is not precast.
68The other parties assert there is no erosion of the Carpenters’ bargaining rights. Counsel submits Mr. Garofolo and two other carpenters are told if you want to continue to work here you cannot as members of Local 27. When Garafalo says he does not want to change unions he is let go. That is erosion of bargaining rights when you are told you cannot work here anymore as a carpenter.
69Counsel submits there are all the elements for a section 1(4) declaration. They are under common control and direction, associated and/or related businesses. There is one business between two of them. The effect of the corporate arrangement is that there is a very definite erosion of bargaining rights. There are three people who suffered a loss of work opportunity, loss of ability to find work from the business entity that is carrying on the work.
70Counsel cited the following cases in support of the applicant’s position:
I & I Construction Services; Dewar Insulations Inc., [1992] O.L.R. D. No. 2064; Elmont Construction Limited and Bruce N. Huntley Contracting Limited, [1974] OLRB Rep. June 342; English & Mould Ltd., [1979] OLRB Feb. 83; M. J. Guthrie Construction Limited, [1984] OLRB Jan. 50; The John Hayman & Sons Company Limited Ontario, [1984] OLRB Rep. June 822; United Shelters Ltd., [1981] OLRB Rep. June 796; Penka Carpentry Limited, [1985] OLRB May 711; Warren Steeplejacks Limited, [1989] OLRB Rep. March 309; Stebill Limited, [1989] OLRB April 384; Brnk’s Canada Limited, [1987] OLRB May 647; Tactix Construction Limited, [1990] OLRB Rep. April 467; J. H. Normick Inc., [1979] OLRB Dec. 1176.
71Counsel submits the control that Mr. G. Tiberini exercises over Roycet and the A.R.G. Group is sufficient to find related activities. With respect to Roycet the declaration should issue because of the potential of work being done by Roycet.
Reply Argument:
72In reply counsel for A.R.G. Group commented on two of the cases cited by the applicant with respect to the Board’s exercise of its discretion. Brinks (supra) deals with direct erosion of bargaining rights. Tiberini Limited never had that work. A.R.G. had the work. All Tiberini Limited ever gets is in-house carpentry work. The Brinks case is of no assistance. In Dewar, (supra), the Board granted the 1(4) because it was uncertain as to whether an immediate jurisdictional dispute would exist. However that decision in para. 18 refers to a decision in which the Board refused to exercise its discretion and make a section 1(4) declaration in circumstances where there clearly were competing work claims. Counsel submits there is certainty here of a jurisdictional claim by both unions and asks that the Board take that into consideration in the exercise of its discretion.
73Counsel for Roycet replies each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The Board looks at the potential for mischief such as in Kustom, (supra), where there is a scheme to defeat the union’s bargaining rights. There is no such scheme here. (see Hayman, (supra)). Roycet is not engaged in construction work. All of the cases are in the same business. A.R.G. Group is engaged in the construction industry. Then there is Roycet, a non-construction entity, that the applicant says should be subject to a section 1(4) declaration. None of the cases talk about that kind of a situation. All the cases are with respect to construction bargaining rights (except for Brinks).
74Counsel for the intervenor Labourers submits that the applicant talks about Garofolo and two other carpenters being told they can no longer work on the ROYCET system as members of Local 27 but the applicant is not saying it is an unfair labour practice. Counsel for the applicant says that is what happens when a union is enforcing a closed shop. Then the applicant states there is a 50% erosion of bargaining rights but it is not an unfair labour practice. The carpenter’s bargaining rights are still with Tiberini Limited as they have always been. They are 100% effective in accordance with the circumstances under which they were acquired. Counsel submits there is no erosion of bargaining rights whatsoever and would ask the Board so find.
Decision
75The applicant did not pursue the sale of a business allegation. The application as it relates to section 69 is hereby dismissed.
76The application under section 1(4) of the Act is in several parts. There is the issue of whether Roycet is a business in the construction industry and/or is in fact an “associated or related business or activity under common direction and control” with the A.R.G. Group. Another aspect of this application is whether the Board should exercise its discretion in these particular circumstances and declare that A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited are one employer and therefore bound to the applicant’s collective agreement.
77Dealing first with Roycet. There is absolutely no evidence before the Board that Roycet is anything other than a sales and marketing company for a new and innovative building product called “ROYCET – INNOVATIVE WALL SYSTEMS”. The patent for this innovative wall system is not in the control of Roycet or Galliano Tiberini. Even if this company were involved in the installation of this product the fact that the core of this business involves a product whose patent is controlled by another party would certainly raise questions with respect to “common control” under section 1(4). However based on the evidence the Board is satisfied that this company does not carry on a business in the construction industry.
78The section 1(4) application as it relates to Royal Concrete Encased Technologies Inc. is hereby dismissed.
79The issue with respect to A.R.G. and Tiberini Limited is one of the Board’s discretion. In the particular circumstances of this case should be Board grant the relief requested by the applicant? The circumstances under which the Carpenters and Tiberini Limited signed the voluntary recognition agreement are not in dispute. The evidence does not support the applicant’s assertion that its bargaining rights are at risk.
Tiberini Limited is carrying on business as it has in the past. Contribution to the Carpenters’ funds by Tiberini Limited indicate business as usual. The “peace treaty” brought about a change in the way that A.R.G. carried on its business. There was no scheme here to circumvent anyone’s bargaining rights.
80Whether or not the work of installing these new wall systems is the work of the Labourers or the Carpenters is not an issue before the Board in this proceeding. What is evident is that both unions are asserting a claim to this work. The potential for a jurisdictional dispute certainly exists. The responding parties, the A.R.G. Group, have arranged their business in a way that utilizes carpenters when needed under their collective agreement with Tiberini Limited and performs their work with labourers under their collective agreement or agreements with A.R.G. At the time the Carpenters entered into the voluntary recognition agreement it was aware of the circumstances caused by the "peace treaty”. It was certainly aware of the existing bargaining rights with respect to A.R.G. and the Labourers.
81There has been no transfer of work from one entity to another or any kind of scheme to defeat the applicant’s bargaining rights. In circumstances beyond any of the responding partys’ control (the “peace treaty”) the applicant obtained bargaining rights through a voluntary recognition agreement signed by Tiberini Limited.
82The circumstances in this application do not warrant a section 1(4) declaration which would result in A.R.G. becoming bound to the applicant’s collective agreement.
83For the foregoing reasons, the section 1(4) application as it relates to A.R.G. Construction Enterprise Inc. and Tiberini Construction and Holding Inc. is dismissed.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board