1572-01-R United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 397, Applicant v. Spancrest Enterprises Inc. o/a Spancrest Construction, Responding Party.
1770-01-U United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 397, Applicant v. Spancrest Enterprises Inc. o/a Spancrest Construction, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 14, 2001
This is an application for certification filed under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
By decision dated September 6, 2001 the Board found the appropriate bargaining unit to be all carpenters and carpenters apprentices in the employ of Spancrest Enterprises Inc. o/a Spancrest Construction (“Spancrest”) in the ICI sector and in all others sectors in Board Area No. 12. A representation vote was held in the voting constituency of all carpenters and carpenters apprentices employed by Spancrest, ICI and Board Area No. 12. The ballot box was sealed under section 8.1 of the Act.
The following is the Board’s understanding of the issues in dispute based on the materials and submissions filed with the Board.
The bargaining unit is agreed as follows:
all carpenters and carpenters apprentices in ICI and all other sectors in Board Area No. 12.
That is the unit the applicant sought to certify.
The disagreement between the parties is with respect to who was at work in the bargaining unit employed by the responding party, Spancrest.
The applicant asserts the employees of Spancrest at work in the bargaining unit on the application date, August 31, 2001, were John Salo, Jason Lawrence, Terry Badour and Don Johnson. The applicant asserts these employees were at work at the Beaver Lumber Store in Trenton, Ontario in Board Area No. 12.
Spancrest submits that it did not employ any persons at work in the bargaining unit applied for by the applicant. The above named persons, Spancrest submits, were employed by Westbrook Walls & Ceilings (“Westbrook”) at all material times. Spancrest asserts it sub-contracted the carpentry work at the Trenton site to Westbrook.
The responding party, Spancrest, asserts it had four employees at work doing carpentry work in Board Area No. 8 and took the position that the following persons should be eligible to vote: Geza Sebe, Zsolt Redele, Leandro (Leo) Pedra and Vince Spatola. The responding party identified the jobsite in Board Area No. 8 as “United Window & Door, Concord, Ont.”.
The applicant disputes that the above named persons were performing carpentry work for the responding party on the application date.
The membership evidence submitted in support of this application is in the standard form which asks the individual to fill in their name, address and telephone number, the Local No., a signature and date. The cards also have a line in which to insert the name of the employer. Some of the individuals indicated their employer is Spancrest and some indicated their employer is Westbrook.
The responding party states in its response that all of the employees affected by the applicant's description of the bargaining unit (the Trenton site) were employees of Westbrook and were members of the applicant. The responding party asserts Westbrook is bound to the Carpenters’ collective agreement and its employees were dispatched by the union.
If it is determined that Spancrest was in fact the employer of the employees in Board Area No. 12 (the Trenton job) then the next issue will be whether or not the employees in Board Area No. 8 (the Concord job) were doing bargaining unit work. It appears both jobsites are in the ICI sector of the construction industry.
The responding party, Spancrest, is directed to bring to the hearing any payroll records, and other documents, (time sheets, work orders etc.) that identify the work performed on the application date by employees it says performed bargaining unit work.
The Board notes that some of the individuals on whose behalf the applicant filed membership evidence indicated that their employer on the application date was Westbrook. The application date was August 31, 2001. At this point in time the applicant should be in a position to ascertain whether Westbrook made any contributions and/or remittances for any of the employees that are in dispute, if in fact Westbrook is a contractor bound by the Carpenters agreement. Further the applicant’s records should indicate whether carpenters were in fact dispatched to Westbrook during the relevant time.
Prior to this decision being released counsel for the applicant objected to the submissions of the responding party on the basis that they were untimely. However the submissions simply reiterate the responding party’s earlier submissions and information contained in their response to both the application for certification and the section 96 complaint. This objection is without merit.
This application will be set down for hearing together with the section 96 complaint in Board File No. 1770-01-U on January 18, 2002 and February 7, 2002, commencing at 9:30 a.m. in the "Board Room", 2nd Floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
This panel is not seized.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board