SNC – Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc. v. Teamsters, Local Union 230
0481-00-U SNC – Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc. and Ferrovial Agroman Canada Inc., Applicants v. Teamsters, Local Union 230, Ready-Mix, Building Supply, Hydro & Construction Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Responding Party v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721, Intervenors.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: James G. Knight, Albert Sweetnam and Rob Pattison for the applicants; David Watson, John Burt and Frank Marrano for the responding party; Mark J. Lewis, Roger Quinn and Marcia N. Kredentser for the Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183; Robert Gibson for the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 and the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 15, 2000
This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1 (the "Act") alleging violations of sections 17, 76, 79 of the Act and alleging a failure to comply with a settlement pursuant to section 96(7) of the Act. The Chair of the Board authorized me to sit alone to hear and determine this matter pursuant to section 110(14)(a) of the Act.
The issue before me arose out of a document entitled “The Highway 407 Project Labour Framework Agreement” (the “407 Labour Agreement”). All of the parties to that agreement which was executed on August 6, 1999 attended the hearing before me on May 15, 2000. At that hearing, all of the parties agreed that the 407 Labour Agreement was a valid and enforceable agreement. Therefore, despite any reservations one might have had about its enforceability under the Act prior to the commencement of these proceedings, I am satisfied that the 407 Labour Agreement, having been specifically adopted by the parties before me, now constitutes a written settlement of a proceeding under the Act, and as such is clearly enforceable as among the parties to this proceeding.
The parties acknowledge that there is a dispute within the meaning of article 13 of the 407 Labour Agreement. Article 13 provides in part:
Any dispute between the Joint Venture and the Unions or any of them in respect of the interpretation, administration or alleged violation of any of the terms and conditions herein…shall be determined as follows:
(b) The parties agree that any dispute between the Joint Venture and the Unions or any of them in respect of the interpretation, administration or alleged violation of any of the terms and conditions herein shall be deemed to be a complaint under section 96 (1) of the Act.
(c) The parties further agree that, in the event of any dispute arising under (b) above, they shall jointly make a consent application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) to have the Board order that the dispute be referred to arbitration.
The dispute arises under Article 10 of the 407 Labour Agreement. The applicant contends that Teamsters Local Union 230, Ready-Mix Building Supply, Hydro & Construction Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Local 230) has acted contrary to article 10. Local 230 vehemently denies the allegation. Given the parties’ agreement, and in particular, article 13 of the 407 Labour Agreement, I did not receive any evidence about the dispute nor am I in a position to comment about the merits of it. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that there is a genuine dispute over an alleged violation of article 10 of the 407 Labour Agreement.
- The applicant sought a declaration and an order directing that the dispute be referred to arbitration under article 13 of the 407 Labour Agreement. It did not seek any additional remedies despite having alleged violations of sections 17, 76 and 79 of the Act. Under the circumstances it was not necessary for me to consider those allegations. Therefore, based on the representations of counsel and the material filed, the Board hereby:
a) declares that the 407 Labour Agreement is a written settlement of a proceeding under the Act and as such is enforceable pursuant to section 96 (7) of the Act;
b) declares that there is a dispute between the applicant and Local 230 relating to the interpretation, administration or alleged violation of the 407 Labour Agreement;
c) directs the applicant and Local 230 to submit their dispute to the arbitrator named in article 13 (c) of the 407 Labour Agreement.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board