Ontario Labour Relations Board
3254-00-R Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1, Applicant v. Del Gant Construction Limited, Responding Party v. Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor.
3309-00-R Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1, Applicant v. Avenue Structures Inc., also carrying on business as Canform Structures, Responding Party v. Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor.
3808-00-R Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1, Applicant v. 1428508 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as Forma-Con Construction, Responding Party v. Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor.
0483-01-U Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada, Local 1, Universal Workers’ Union, Labourers International Union of North America Local 183, John Meiorin, Tony Dionisio, Victor Ferreira, Rocco Lotito, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: L. Richmond for Bricklayers Local 1 in File Nos. 0483-01-U and 3254-00-R; J. Meiorin for Bricklayers Local 1 in File Nos. 3808-00-R and 3309-00-R; D. Defrancesco for Del Gant Construction and Forma-con Construction; D. Leone for Avenue Structures; D. Watson for the Carpenters’ Union; M. Lewis for Labourers' International Union of North America Local 183.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 30, 2001
1These files consist of three applications for certification made pursuant to the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (the "Act") and an unfair labour practice complaint arising out of these applications.
2The purpose of this decision is to provide notice to four parties whose rights may potentially be affected by the outcome of some of the issues arising in these applications. These parties are:
The Labourers’ Employee Bargaining Agency
The Labourers’ Employer Bargaining Agency
The Masonry Council of Unions Toronto and Vicinity
The Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto and Vicinity (“MCAT”).
3The situation is as follows. Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1 (“Bricklayers’ Local 1”) has made an application for certification seeking to displace the Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“the Carpenters’ Union”) as bargaining agent for all carpenters and carpenters’ apprentices employed by the three employers in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in Board Area 8 (or in one case Board Areas 7 and 8). They are opposed by the three individual employers and by the Carpenters’ Union.
4The Carpenters’ Union has also filed a complaint under section 96 alleging that the three applications for certification were brought in a manner that constitutes a violation of the Act. At the risk of over-simplification, the complaint alleges that Bricklayers’ Local 1 filed membership evidence on behalf of far fewer than 40% of the bargaining unit in each case. It alleges that doing so in the circumstances of these cases constitute a violation of the Act.
5This matter first came on for hearing on May 30, 2001. On that day, the parties identified the following issues that arose out of these applications:
The status of Bricklayers’ Local 1 to bring the applications. Essentially the argument is that the union has ceased to exist and is now a part of Universal Workers’ Union, Labourers' International Union of North America Local 183 (“Local 183”); that it is an empty shell acting only as the “alter ego” of Local 183; or that it has become so much a part of Local 183 that it has become an affiliated bargaining agent of the Labourers’ Employee Bargaining Agency.
The merits of the section 96 application, i.e. do the applications constitute a fraud upon the Board?
The motion of the responding parties in the unfair labour practice complaint to dismiss the complaint as against all or some of them for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The proper description of the bargaining unit in these applications.
The list of employees entitled to vote in the certification applications.
The employers’ issue with respect to the application of section 8.1.
The request for production by the Carpenters’ Union and the employers from various other parties.
6During the course of argument, it became clear that notice ought to be given to other parties whose rights might be affected by the outcome of some of these issues. That is, the Board wishes to provide notice to the four parties listed above of the issues arising in these applications in order that those parties may be provided with the opportunity to determine whether or not they wish to seek status, and if so to seek it.
7Copies of all the relevant pleadings and correspondence in these applications will be delivered to the four parties by courier as soon as possible.
8The hearing in these applications will resume on Thursday, June 7, 2001 commencing at 1:00 p.m. in the Boardroom, 2nd floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto. It will continue if necessary on June 8, 2001. Any party wishing to intervene should indicate its intention to do so by letter faxed to the Board and the other parties no later than 10:00 a.m. on Thursday June 7, 2001. That letter should include a brief outline of the reasons why the party claims a right to intervene.
9The purpose of this hearing will only be to determine whether (1) any of these four parties should be granted status to intervene and (2) in what order the Board should deal with the issues arising from these applications. There will be no evidence of any sort, and no argument leading to a decision on the merits of any of these issues. Counsel should be prepared to set dates at the hearing for further hearing dates.
10If at the end of that argument there are issues which concern only the present parties to the applications (such as the section 8.1 issue raised with respect to one of the employers), it may be possible to deal with the merits of them once the status and order of proceeding issues are dealt with. The Board will not necessarily deal with any issues on the merits, and if it does, it will only do so on June 8, 2001.
11Bricklayers Local 1 raised an issue with respect to notice to several hundred employers it says are bound to a collective agreement with it which mirrors that of the collective agreement with MCAT, but who are not members of MCAT. Bricklayers’ Local 1 is directed to provide the Board with a list of these employers with addresses and phone/fax numbers. If these can be provided in electronic format, the Board directs that they be provided in that form as well as in writing. They will not be given notice of the June 7 hearing date. Whether they should be given notice of subsequent days of hearing can be raised on June 7, 2001.
12I am seized of these applications.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board