Ontario Labour Relations Board
0875-00-G International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 736, Applicant v. The State Group Limited, Responding Party.
0878-00-U International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 736, Applicant v. The State Group Limited; Millwrights Local Union 1916, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Gary Caroline, Frederica Wilson and Douglas Smees for the applicant; Denis Ellickson, Claude Cournoyer and Dan Trudelle for the Millwrights Local Union 1916; Marc Dumont and Gord Joudrey for The State Group Limited.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 8, 2000
1This is a referral of a grievance to arbitration filed under section 133 and a complaint filed under section 96 alleging violations of section 72(a), 76, 79(6) and 81 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act'). There are three parties to the section 96 application, being the applicant, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 736 ("the Iron Workers"), the responding trade union, the Millwrights Local Union 1916 ("the Millwrights") and the responding employer.
2At the outset of the hearing held on November 2, 2000 I dealt with a preliminary matter raised by counsel for the Millwrights. Counsel asserts that the Board should refuse to hear these matters as they are essentially disputes regarding work assignment and should be dealt with under section 99 of the Act which deals with jurisdictional disputes.
3Counsel for the Iron Workers contends that at root this is a complaint regarding improper conduct contrary to the Act and that the main focus of the inquiry must be on that issue.
4After hearing submissions and reviewing the authorities provided I issued an oral ruling that these applications would be deferred pending the filing and disposition of an application under section 99. My reasons were that a section 96 inquiry and the remedies that may flow are discretionary and therefore consideration must be given to the matter giving rise to the dispute; namely the work assignment itself. Once the jurisdictional matter is determined the allegations in the section 96 can be dealt with in a full context.
5After my ruling counsel for the Millwrights advised that his client was prepared to file the application under section 99 within three (3) weeks of the date of the hearing.
6The applicant sought leave to amend its application to add two responding parties to the section 96 application. The applicant contends that these individuals threatened unlawful strikes contrary to section 79(6) of the Act. The Millwrights object to the addition of the individuals as it asserts that it is too late in the day to add parties and further that such additions run counter to the Board's Rules of Procedure. It asserts that there is prejudice occasioned by the delay in proceeding.
7Having heard the submissions of the parties, I dismissed the Millwright's objection to having the individuals added as parties. As these applications are now deferred pending the filing of the section 99 application, there is no prejudice from any delay itself. Further, there is no change to the applicant's pleadings or substance of its allegations as a result of its request. However, the two individuals were not served with the application and I am therefore not prepared to add them as parties at this time. In the event that they are provided with adequate notice of the hearing of the application and choose to attend the issue of their being added as parties can be dealt with at that time.
8Finally at the hearing the applicant requested that the witnesses who were subpoenaed be bound over to appear at the next day of hearing. Although I agreed to that request the parties do not have a hearing date for the section 96 complaint as that has been deferred pending the resolution of the jurisdictional dispute. This request can be renewed by the applicant once a date is set for hearing in the section 96 complaint.
9I remain seized only to deal with any preliminary or procedural issues that arise in respect of the filing of the application under section 99. That application is scheduled to be heard on February 12, 2001 at the Board's Offices, 505 University Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
"Marilyn Silverman"
for the Board