0491-01-G Labourers International Union of North America, Local 1059, Applicant v. Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 23, 2001
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 10, 2001. The accompanying Certificate of Delivery (Form A-86) states that the responding party was served on May 11, 2001 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 Fed Ex Courier on May 10, 2001 who assured the applicant that they would be delivered on Friday, May 11, 2001 by no later than 5:00p.m. The Registrar couriered a Confirmation of Filing of a Referral of Grievance to Arbitration (Form B-67) to the address provided for the responding party in the application, 1868 Parkhurst Avenue, London, Ontario N5V 2C3 on May 14, 2001 at 8:47a.m.
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:
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, I 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:
The Applicant, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059 (“Local 1059”), and the Responding Party, Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc., are bound by the Collective Agreement between Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Inc. and the Labourers’ International Union of North America, and the Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council (the “Collective Agreement”). Zorka Uskokovic signed a voluntary recognition agreement on behalf of Dutchman Interior Stripping on October 28, 1996. By doing so, she agreed that Dutchman Interior Stripping was bound to the Collective Agreement “between the Union and the Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Inc., and any renewals thereof, as if they were original signatories thereto”. In light of no response having been filed, no distinction is drawn between “Dutchman Interior Stripping” and “Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc.”. While the relevant Collective Agreement has now expired, Notice to Bargain has been given and the terms and conditions of the Collective Agreement continue by operation of law.
Articles 5 and 6 of the Collective Agreement require Dutchman Stripping Inc. to only employ members in good standing of Local 1059 unless the Applicant is unable to provide qualified personnel within 48 hours of a request for such personnel by Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc.
On or about April 2, 2001, it came to the Applicant’s attention that Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. was performing interior and exterior demolition work at the Library Project at the Galleria Mall, in London, Ontario. This work was being performed by employees who were not members of Local 1059, contrary to the provisions of the Collective Agreement. At no time did Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. request that the Applicant provide labourers for this project.
The Applicant estimates that Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. has now employed four labourers on a full-time basis for at least four weeks. This work is continuing to be performed by individuals who are not member in good standing of Local 1059, in violation of the Collective Agreement.
Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. has in the past failed to remit the proper contributions to the LML Welfare Trust Fund. Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. is currently in arrears in its contributions to the fund in the amount of $1,627.49. This amount does not include contributions owing from work on the Library Project at the Galleria Mall.
In view of the Board’s findings in paragraph 10 above, the Board therefore:
(a) declares that Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. is bound to the collective agreement between Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Inc. and the Labourers’ International Union of North America, and the Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council (the “Collective Agreement”);
(b) declares that Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. has violated that collective agreement by failing to employ only members in good standing of the applicant for work covered by the terms of the collective agreement and by failing to make remittances in accordance with the terms of that collective agreement;
(c) orders Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. to pay forthwith to the applicant damages in the amount of $11, 006.40 for its violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the collective agreement;
(d) orders Dutchman Interior Striping Inc. to pay forthwith to the applicant damages in the amount of $1627.49 for its failure to make the proper remittances;
(e) orders Dutchman Interior Stripping Inc. to forthwith pay the amount of $214.00 to the applicant pursuant to section 133(13) of the Act.
- The hearing scheduled for May 24, 2001 is hereby cancelled.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board