1904-99-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Applicants v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis and Luigi Scodellaro, Responding Parties v. IUBAC Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 31; Masonry Industry Employers’ Council of Ontario; Terrazzo, Tile and Marble Guild of Ontario Inc., Intervenors.
2532-98-U Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 31, Jerry Coelho and Tom Oldham, Applicants v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, John T. Joyce, John J. Flynn, Frank Stupar, and James Bowland, Responding Parties v. Terrazzo, Tile & Marble Guild of Ontario Inc., Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers on its own behalf and on behalf of all its affiliated Locals, and the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Locals 6, 7 and 25, Masonry Industry Employers’ Council of Ontario, Intervenors.
2736-00-R Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Applicant v. The Terrazzo, Tile and Marble Guild of Ontario Inc. and Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Responding Parties.
2737-00-R Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Applicant v. Masonry Industry Employers’ Council of Ontario and Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 22, 2001
1The Board has received a letter from counsel for the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (“IUBAC”) dated May 18, 2001. The IUBAC asserts that the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (“BACU”) and the Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (“OPC”) have not complied with the last portion of paragraph 191 (under “Notice” on page 52) and asks the Board to direct the applicants to comply with the Board’s direction.
2Absent agreement from the BACU and the OPC, or evidence at a hearing, the Board cannot determine whether or not the assertion of the IUBAC is correct. In the interests of moving this matter along, the Board directs the BACU and the OPC to respond to the assertions set out in the May 18, 2001 letter forthwith, and no later Friday, May 26, 2001.
3However, as noted in the Board’s decision of May 11, 2001, The Board’s decision speaks for itself and continues to do so until amended, reconsidered or quashed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Enforcement of the Board’s decision is a different matter. The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers may choose to proceed under section 108 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995 ch. 1 (since the direction is made pursuant to two applications under section 96). It may choose to bring other proceedings before the Board. The choice of what steps to take is that of a party, not the Board. The IUBAC has asked the Board to determine in a formal way whether or not there has been compliance with its order and if not, to repeat its direction. However, the Board notes that even in that circumstance the Board’s orders and directions are not self-executing.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board