2532-98-U Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 31, Jerry Coelho and Tom Oldham, Applicants v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, John T. Joyce, John J. Flynn, Frank Stupar, and James Bowland, Responding Parties v. Terrazzo, Tile & Marble Guild of Ontario Inc., Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers on its own behalf and on behalf of all its affiliated Locals, and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Masonry Industry Employer’s Council of Ontario, Intervenors.
1904-99-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Applicants v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis and Luigi Scodellaro, Responding Parties v. IUBAC Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 31; Masonry Industry Employers’ Council of Ontario; Terrazzo, Tile and Marble Guild of Ontario Inc., Intervenors.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 28, 2000
These are two applications filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 ("the Act") arising out of a longstanding dispute within the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (“IUBAC”) and between the IUBAC and the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (“BACU”). They are two of a large number of applications outstanding before the Board.
Board File No. 2532-98-U is chronologically the first of these cases, and is the most important of them. The parties have already spent a number of days in mediation and litigation before another Vice-Chair of the Board. On July 19, 1999 that panel of the Board issued a decision finding that the IUBAC had violated sections 147 and 149 of the Act. The only issue, although it is a major one, is the appropriate remedial order(s) which the Board ought to make as a result of that violation. The Vice-Chair hearing that matter has since left the Board. The Chair of the Board has appointed me to complete the hearing of this application.
The completion of Board File No. 2532-98-U is of considerable importance. The trade union parties and the two Employer Bargaining Agencies need to know the final resolution of this dispute (and indeed have needed to know it for some time). This is particularly so given the expiry date of the two Provincial Collective Agreements, the need for bargaining before that event, and the statutory “open period” which commences prior to the expiry date. Ideally the parties need to know the final result in at least Board File No. 2532-98-U by the end of February, 2001. Further, there are a large number of applications which have been filed by various union
parties. Most of them either depend on the result in 2532-98-U (such as 1904-99-U itself) or have been filed because of the absence of a clear resolution of the dispute in Board File No. 2532‑98‑U.
The Board wishes to hold a meeting with counsel for all of the parties to discuss the conduct of this portion of the case and to set dates for the hearing of it. Given the short notice, it is probably possible to do so only at the end of a hearing day. I can meet with the parties any of December 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 or 14. (I would prefer not to set the 12th as this might put a limit on a consultation in another application among many of these parties set for that day, and I can stay no later than 7:00 p.m. that day.) Counsel should advise the Board which of these dates is most convenient as soon as possible, failing which the Board will schedule a 5:00 p.m. start for one of those dates. Counsel will not likely have the opportunity to discuss the relative convenience of various dates other than at this meeting.
I am seized of these applications.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board