0332-01-R Feliciano Franco, Angelo Mongillo, Aracangelo Porciello, Fernando Tedesco, Oscar Vega, Jorge Suira, Jorge Aguinada, Applicants v. Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association of the United States and Canada, AFL CIO, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 23, 2001
1This is an application to terminate bargaining rights in the construction industry.
2By letter dated May 16, 2001 counsel for the responding party requests that the Board amend the bargaining unit description set out in the decision ordering the vote which decision was dated May 3, 2001. The vote was held and all ballots are sealed and segregated.
3The bargaining unit description set out in the application is:
The employer Bargaining Agency recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all working foremen, journeymen and apprentice, cement masons and waterproofers engaged in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in the Province of Ontario.
4Although the responding party claims that the application only relates to the ICI sector of the construction industry, the description that the responding party provided and which was the one that the Board used in the May 3, 2001 decision reads:
all working foremen, journeymen and apprentice, cement masons and waterproofers engaged in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and the residential sector of the construction industry in the Province of Ontario.
5In its response, the responding party listed the job sites where it claims that says that affected employees worked on the application date. All the projects listed by the responding party are residential projects.
6It appears to the Board that the bargaining unit description should have been the one set out in the application if that description conforms to the description contained in the ICI collective agreement. The applicant shall have seven (7) days from the date of this decision to provide submissions to the Board as to why the bargaining unit description in the decision of May 3, 2001 should not be amended such as to reflect the bargaining unit description set out in paragraph 3 above. The responding party need not respond to these submissions unless requested to do so by the Board.
7I remain seized to deal with this application.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board