0366-01-R Pierre Deschamps on his own behalf and on behalf of a group of employees of L & L Leroux Contracting Ltd., Applicant v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527A, Responding Party v. L & L Leroux Contracting Inc., Intervenor.
0250-01-G Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527, Applicant v. L & L Leroux Contracting Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 17, 2001
1Board File No. 0366-01-R an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, as amended (“the Act”) for a declaration that the responding party (“the union”) no longer represents the employees in a bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent (“the termination application”).
2Board File No. 0250-01-G is the referral of a grievance to arbitration in the construction industry pursuant to the provisions of section 126 of the Act (“the construction grievance”).
3A representation vote has been held the termination application. The two individuals who cast ballots voted against continued representation by the union.
4The following appear to be the live issues in the termination application :
a) Whether the two individuals who cast ballots in the representation vote were entitled to vote and whether their votes should be given effect to;
b) Whether two individuals of Tar-Tech should have received notice of the representation vote and should have been eligible to cast ballots;
c) Whether the employment of the two individuals who cast ballots in the representation vote constitutes a violation by the intervening employer (“the employer”) of section 63(16) of the Act;
d) Whether the individuals who were at the Carp Road site for the employer on the application date should have received notice of the representation vote and should have been eligible to cast ballots.
5The union would like to have the construction grievance determined before the termination application. It says that determination is necessary in order to resolve Issue 2 above. It is not apparent to the Board why the construction grievance has a bearing on that issue. The determination of Issue 2 above does not appear to depend upon the outcome of the construction grievance. Nevertheless, at the hearing to be scheduled, the union may have an opportunity to persuade the Board otherwise.
6The two applications should be set down for hearing for one day. The two applications are not being consolidated, nor will they necessarily be heard together. The panel of the Board assigned to hear the termination application can decide that. At the hearing the Board will determine the manner of proceeding in respect of the issues described.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board