Ontario Labour Relations Board
0346-01-R Belmiro Cruz, Applicant v. Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1 and Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 and Masonry Council of Unions Toronto and Vicinity, Responding Parties v. Brickland Masonry Contracting (1996) Inc., Intervenor.
1228-01-U Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1, Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 and Masonry Council of Unions Toronto and Vicinity, Applicants v. Brickland Masonry Contracting (1996) Inc. and Belmiro Cruz, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 12, 2001
- The names of the responding parties in Board File No. 0346-01-R is amended to read:
“Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1 and Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 and Masonry Council of Unions Toronto and Vicinity”.
The name of the responding party “Brickland Masonry Contracting” in Board File No. 1228-01-U is hereby amended to read: “Brickland Masonry Contracting (1996) Inc.”.
These are related matters. Board File No. 0346-01-R is an application for termination of bargaining rights in the construction industry, under section 63 or 132 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as amended (the “Act”). Board File No. 1228-01-U is an application under section 96 of the Act, alleging the responding parties have violated sections 5, 70, 72, 76, 77 and 87 of the Act.
The responding party, Brickland Masonry Contracting (1996) Inc. (“Brickland”), in its response to the unfair labour practice complaint, asserts the applicant has not established a prima facie case against the employer or in the alternative has not sufficiently particularized its allegations. Brickland submits that this application (Board File No. 1228-01-U) should be dismissed with costs to the company and the relief requested in Schedule “A” by the applicant should be denied.
Having reviewed the pleadings it is not appropriate to dismiss the section 96 application at this stage. The Registrar is directed to schedule these matters together for hearing.
These matters are referred to the Registrar and the Manager for Field Services.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board