Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 v. Chislett Asphalt Roofing Ltd., 2001 CanLII 10920

Editor’s Note: Corrigendum released on May 15, 2001. Original judgment has been corrected with text of corrigendum appended.

0413-01-R Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Chislett Asphalt Roofing Ltd., Responding Party v. Labourers’ International Union of America, Intervenor.

BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and A. Haward.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 4, 2001

This is an application for certification filed under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"). The applicant seeks to displace the intervenor as bargaining agent for:

all roofers, metalmen and their helpers, including dependent pieceworkers and hourly paid employees, engaged in all phases of roofing, including the application of shingles, louvers, roof vents, eave protection, step flashing, metal or asphalt valleys, ice and water shield and corner pans in all sectors of the construction industry, excluding the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in the Province of Ontario, save and except non-working foremen, persons above the rank of non-working foreman, persons engaged in re-roofing, hourly servicemen, flat roofers, aluminum/vinyl applicators, office, warehouse/shop and clerical employees.

The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of sections 1(1) and 126 of the Act.
It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant (see section 8(3) of the Act), that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
The responding party disputes the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit. It gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act.
The Board finds that the bargaining unit described in the application could be appropriate. After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant as against the information provided by the responding party, the Board cannot be certain that the numerical difference between the parties is not significant. The ballot box will be sealed and the ballots not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
The Board further finds that the unit of employees described in paragraph 1 above constitutes a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.
Having regard to the Board's finding as to the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:

The vote will be held on May 8, 2001. Vote arrangements are set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Meeting".
The responding party is directed to post copies of the application for certification, the “Notice to Employees of Application for Certification”, this decision and the "Notice of Vote and of Meeting" in a location or locations where they are most likely to come to the attention of those individuals who are eligible to vote. These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
All individuals who were employed by Chislett Asphalt Roofing Ltd. and at work in the voting constituency on April 30, 2001 are eligible to vote.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.
Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue relating to the application for certification which remains in dispute, other than status disputes, must file a detailed statement of representations and all material facts upon which they rely with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken. Representations with respect to any status dispute must be made in accordance with the directions provided in Information Bulletin No. 9: Status Disputes in Certification Applications in the Construction Industry.
This matter is referred to the Registrar.

“Marilyn Silverman”

for the Board

BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and A. Haward.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 15, 2001

On May 4, 2001 this panel of the Board ordered a representations vote to be held in this application. There are two errors contained in that decision. The first is contained in the description of the bargaining unit and voting constituency where pieceworkers should have been described as “dependent”. The second is in respect of the responding party’s challenge under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act'). In fact, the responding party did not indicate that it disagreed with the bargaining unit description proposed in the application. Having regard to these, the May 4, 2001 decision is amended as follows.

a) The bargaining unit description in paragraph 1 and the voting constituency in paragraph 7 refer to “independent pieceworkers ”. Those paragraphs are hereby amended to refer to “dependent pieceworkers” rather than “independent pieceworkers”;

b) Paragraph 4 of the decision indicates that the responding party proposed a different bargaining unit than that of the applicant. That is not the case. Accordingly the second sentence of paragraph 4 is deleted.

“Marilyn Silverman”

for the Board