0435-00-G The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, (formerly known as The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades), District Council 46 (Local Union 1891), Applicant v. Lopes Drywall & Acoustics Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Gail Misra, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 19, 2000
This is a referral of a grievance to the Board for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, (the “Act”). The referral was made on May 9, 2000. The accompanying Certificate of Delivery (Form A-86) states that the responding party was served on May 10, 2000 by the applicant having delivered a copy of the necessary documents required by Rule 155 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure to the responding party by giving them to Purolator Courier on May 9, 2000 who assured the applicant that they would be delivered on Wednesday, May 10, 2000 by no later than 4:00 p.m.. The Registrar sent by courier Confirmation of Filing of a Referral of Grievance to Arbitration (Form B-67) to the address provided for the responding party in the application, 9 East Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6N 5B2 on May 10, 2000.
As of the date of this decision, the responding party has not filed a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate (Form A-87). The Board’s Rules of Procedure explicitly stipulate the consequences of failing to comply with the filing requirements contained in the Rules.
Section 133 of the Act provides, in part:
“(7) The Board is not required to hold a hearing if the responding party does not file any material.
(8) If the Board does not hold a hearing in the circumstances described in subsection (7), the Board may determine the matter with reference only to the material filed by the party referring the grievance.
(9) If the Board accepts the referral, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the difference or allegation raised in the grievance referred to it, including any question as to whether the matter is arbitrable, and subsections 48(10) and (12) to (20) apply with necessary modifications to the Board and to the enforcement of the decision of the Board.”
- In addition, the Chair of the Board has the authority to make rules to give effect to the various statutory powers conferred upon the Board. Section 110(17) of the Act provides:
“The chair may make rules governing the Board’s practice and procedure and the exercise of its powers and prescribing such forms as the chair considers advisable.”
Furthermore, the Board has very wide powers to require a party to provide particulars, documents, and any other information the Board deems necessary. (See sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Act.)
The Board’s Rules in respect of section 133 proceedings place a substantial burden on the applicant. As well as filing certain material with the Board, the applicant must provide to the responding party:
A copy of the application
A copy of the Notice of grievance referral.
A blank copy of the Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend (Form A-87, i.e. the form the responding party requires to file its response.
A blank response form for the responding party’s use.
A copy of the Board’s Rules with respect to section 133 referrals (i.e. Part VIII of the Rules, being Rules 143-163) and Information Bulletin No. 20 which provides the responding party with further information about the process involved in a section 133 application (including the consequences of default).
The only thing a responding party must do to avoid default proceedings is to complete the Form A-87 supplied by the applicant and deliver it to the Board and the applicant within five days of the date of the Board’s Confirmation of Filing (Form B-67). Form A-87 requires little more than the responding party’s name and address and an assertion that the responding party wishes to defend against the grievance referral. The substance of that defence is contained in the response which is not due until 9:30 a.m. on the day set for hearing.
The Board’s Rules require quick responses from responding parties in many sorts of applications. In an application for certification, for example, a responding employer (who is often unfamiliar with proceedings under the Act) must respond within two days after the application was served on it. In a section 133 proceeding, the responding party has some relationship with the applicant and therefore should have some understanding of the contractual and statutory context in which a grievance referral arises. In any event, the Form B-67 faxed to the responding party contains the following warning in bold print:
“The failure to file a timely Request in the way required by the Board’s Rules of Procedure may result in the referral being decided without a hearing and without further notice to the defaulting party.”
- The Board’s Rules deal specifically with the consequences of failing to file the Form A-87. Rules 160 to 162, which are part of the Rules package delivered to the responding party by the applicant, provide as follows:
“160. If a responding party does not deliver and file a “Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend” (Form A-87) in the way required by these rules, he or she may automatically be deemed to have accepted all of the facts stated in the application, and the Board may cancel a hearing (if one is scheduled), and decide the case (or part of the case) upon the material before it without further notice.
Where the facts stated in the application are deemed to be true and the Board considers that it can make a finding of liability, but cannot determine the question of damages, the Board may decide the liability issue under Rule 160 and leave the damages issue to be determined at an oral hearing.
Where the Board decides or has decided a case (or part of a case) under Rule 160, the responding party may not file a Request or a response, or take any other step in connection with the application, other than a reconsideration application, except with the permission of the Board.”
Accordingly, we shall proceed on the basis that all of the allegations of fact set out in the referral to the Board and in the grievance material have been accepted by the responding party and therefore can be relied on by the Board in making a determination of this matter. The Board therefore finds that:
(a) the union was certified to represent the employees of the responding party in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry, and in the City of Toronto, the Regional municipalities of Peel and York, the Towns of Oakville and Halton Hills and that portion of the Town of Milton within the geographic Townships of Esquesing and Trafalgar, and the Towns of Ajax and Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham for all other sectors of the construction industry, on December 12, 1996;
(b) the responding party is bound to the collective agreement between The Ontario Painting Contractors Association Acoustical Association Ontario Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario and The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and The Ontario Council of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, effective May 1, 1998 to April 30, 2001;
(c) the responding party has failed to remit benefit contributions and vacation pay as required by the provisions of the collective agreement for the period from November 1, 1999 up to March 30, 2000;
(d) despite the union’s requests to the responding party, no benefit remittance reports for the period in question have been provided nor have benefits and vacation pay remittances been made;
(e) Greg Smith, the union’s business representative, has spoken to the union’s members who are employed by the responding party performing work falling within the scope of the collective agreement during the period in question. Mr. Smith has collected information from these workers regarding their hours worked;
(f) based on the information Mr. Smith collected, it appears there were 29 members of the union who worked between November 1, 1999 and March 30, 2000 performing bargaining unit work;
(g) the responding party has therefore failed to make remittances for 7,000 hours of bargaining unit work performed. The remittances for benefits should have been paid at the rate of $4.87 per hour. Vacation pay is calculated at 10% of that figure.
- In view of the Board’s findings in paragraph 10 above, the Board therefore:
(a) declares that Lopes Drywall & Acoustic Inc. is bound by the terms and conditions of the Collective Agreement between The Ontario Painting Contractors Association Acoustical Association Ontario Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario and The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and The Ontario Council of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, effective May 1, 1998 to April 30, 2001;
(b) declares that Lopes Drywall & Acoustics Inc. has violated Articles 12, 13, 15.02, 17, 18 ad 35 of the Master Portion and the Local 1819 appendix thereto of the collective agreement;
(c) orders Lopes Drywall & Acoustics Inc. to forthwith pay to the union damages in the amount of $37,499.00 for the breaches of the collective agreement outlined above; and,
(d) orders Lopes Drywall & Acoustics Inc. to forthwith pay to the union reimbursement for its filing fees in the amount of $214.00 in accordance with section 133(13) of the Act.
- The hearing scheduled for May 23, 2000 is hereby cancelled.
“Gail Misra”
for the Board