Ontario Labour Relations Board
3682-00-R Labourers’ International Union of North America, Applicant v. Sherwood Trim & Doors Inc., Responding Party v. Carpenters and Allied Workers, Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor.
3826-00-U Labourers’ International Union of North America, Applicant v. Jack Da Silva, Pinevalley Trim & Doors Ltd., Sherwood Trim & Doors Inc., Nice-Trim Finish Carpentry Ltd., Northend Construction Ltd., Wyecroft Lumber and Trim Limited, Mattamy Homes Limited and Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
APPEARANCES: John Moszynski and Henry Perreira for the applicant; Joseph Morrison and Edward Irvine for Sherwood Trim & Doors Inc.; David Watson and Sergio Lopes for Carpenters and Allied Workers, Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; David Chondon and Antonio Rodrigues for Pinevalley Trim & Doors Ltd., David Chondon and Philomena Blake for Wyecroft Lumber and Trim Limited; H. P. Rolph for Jack Da Silva; and Joseph Liberman for Nice-Trim Finish Carpentry Ltd.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 20, 2001
Decision
1This is an application for certification in the construction industry and a complaint alleging an unfair labour practice, brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act (the “Act”).
2The name of the responding party in both applications is amended to Sherwood Trim & Doors Inc. (Sherwood) and the style of cause is amended accordingly.
3The matters came on for hearing on June 18, 2001. At the start, a number of the responding parties in the section 96 application, that is, Nice-Trim Finished Carpentry Ltd. (Nice-Trim), Northend Construction Ltd. (Northend) and Wyecroft Lumber and Trim Limited (Wyecroft) sought an opportunity to bring a motion seeking to have the unfair labour practice complaint as against their clients dismissed on the basis that it did not make out a prima facie or arguable breach of the Act. Those parties were concerned about being required to attend at the Board while the related certification, in which they have no interest, was being litigated.
4After hearing the submissions of all parties, which were helpful and focused on efficient use of the Board and the parties’ time, I determined that the responding parties involved only in the unfair labour practice complaint would not have to remain. Further, the Board determined that the prima facie case motion would be heard in writing. The parties bringing the motion are required to serve and file their materials no later than July 3, 2001. Any party who wishes to respond must do so by July 30, 2001 and any reply must be made by August 7, 2001. As this case is being heard by a panel of one, the parties need file only two copies of their submissions.
5The Board indicated to the parties to the certification application that it was inclined to deal first with the status issue relating to Mr. McKnight, after which the Board would likely direct that the ballots be counted, resorting to a determination of the status of Mr. Correira and Mr. Valerio only in the event that the counting of the first set of ballots was not determinative. The parties then agreed that Mr. McKnight was entitled to vote. The Board arranged for the counting of the ballots. The parties are satisfied that Mr. Correira and Mr. Valerio’s status does not have to be determined at this time. In the event that the Board orders a further representation vote, the Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the Carpenters) reserve the right to seek a determination of Mr. Correira and Mr. Valerio’s status to participate in that second vote.
6In a letter dated March 27, 2001, the Carpenters allege that the Labourers’ International Union of North America (the Labourers) received support from Sherwood with respect to this certification application. The Carpenters request that the application be dismissed. Somewhat ironically, the results of the representation vote (whose reliability in reflecting the true wishes of employees is challenged by the Labourers) favours the Carpenters, so one might wonder what value there is to enquiring into the Carpenters allegations. The Carpenters have filed no unfair labour practice complaint, and indicated they do not intend to file one. The Carpenters are now in the unenviable position of seeking to uphold the results of the representation vote, while at the same time attacking the conduct of the employer with respect to that same vote.
7However, in the event that the Carpenters continue to seek to rely on the allegations of misconduct by Sherwood, counsel for the Carpenters has undertaken to deliver and file particulars of the allegations set out in paragraph 3 of its March 27, 2001 letter by no later than July 3, 2001.
8The Board will provide its decision with respect to the prima facie case motion before addressing the adequacy of particulars in the Labourers’ unfair labour practice complaint and other issues relating to the organization and scheduling of an oral hearing.
9The Registrar is directed to place the submissions before this panel of the Board if convenient.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board