Peter Condon and Chris Gannon v. Christian Labour Association of Canada Construction Workers, Local 150
File No.: 4194-97-U Date: June 27, 2001
Peter Condon and Chris Gannon, Applicants v. Christian Labour Association of Canada Construction Workers, Local 150; Christian Labour Association of Canada and Construction Workers Local 6, Christian Labour Association of Canada, Responding Parties v. Ledcor Industries Limited, Maple Engineering & Construction Canada Ltd., Stephens & Rankin Inc. Demik Construction Company Ltd., Harm Schilthuis & Sons Ltd., G.S.Wark Ltd., Besseling Plumbing & Heating Ltd., Group 92 Ltd., Intervenors.
BEFORE: Kevin Whitaker, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (the “Act”). In a decision dated October 7, 1999, the Board directed that a consultation be convened to deal with the applicants’ claims as against the respondent Christian Labour Association of Canada (“CLAC”).
2The consultation was convened on April 17, 19 and 20, 2000. At the consultation, the Board heard from the applicant Peter Condon and Ron Rupke, Ontario Representative of the respondent CLAC.
3Following the consultation, the respondents provided to the applicants a significant quantity of productions upon which the parties made further written submissions.
4Having reviewed the information provided by Messrs. Condon and Rupke in response to questions from the Board and the parties at the consultation and the submissions filed by the parties to date, I find the following:
(i) From December 5, 1996 through at least to the date of application, the applicant Chris Cannon was a member in good standing of the respondent CLAC;
(ii) From February 11, 1997 until September 30, 1997, the applicant Peter Condon was a member in good standing of the respondent CLAC;
(iii) With respect to the following employers, the respondent CLAC failed to take any significant or effective steps to ensure that the employer’s obligations under the referral to work provisions of the respective collective agreements were being honoured, for periods during which both applicants were members of CLAC in good standing:
Gisborne Design Services Ltd.
Maple Engineering & Construction Canada Ltd.
Ledcor Communications Ltd.
Stephens and Rankin Inc.
Pedro Construction Ltd.
Kile Contr. Inc.
Northwind Management Ltd.
R&M Transit Mix Service.
(iv) It is more likely than not that if the respondent CLAC had taken effective steps to enforce the referral to work provisions of the respective collective agreements with the employers referred to above, both applicants would have been referred to some work during the periods for which they remained members in good standing of the respondent CLAC, and the applicant Condon, would have continued to have dues remitted on his behalf to the respondent which would have had the effect of extending his membership standing past September 30, 1997.
5The conduct of the respondent CLAC in failing to take effective steps to enforce the referral to work provisions of the respective collective agreements with the employers identified above in sub-paragraph 4(iii) of this decision may be characterized as “arbitrary” for purposes of section 75 of the Act.
6In Stephen Shepard, [1993] OLRB Rep. June 555, at paragraph 26, the Board describes the standards of conduct below which a respondent trade union will be found to have breached the provisions of section 75 of the Act. While it is understood that in that case, the Board was reviewing the operation of a hiring hall, and that in this case, the respondent CLAC is of the view that it does not operate a hiring hall, the analysis applies equally to a trade union’s obligations to enforce any provisions which serve to refer members to work opportunities generally. In the present case, the respondent CLAC has failed to meet the standards described in Shepard and to this extent has breached the provisions of section 75 of the Act.
7With these findings, the matter in its entirety is remitted to the parties. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues in this application which remain outstanding, they are to write to the Registrar, indicating what remains to be determined with suggestions as to how and by what process the remaining issues may be disposed of.
“Kevin Whitaker”
for the Board