3502-99-JD Clifford Restoration Limited, Applicant v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, the Brick Employee Bargaining Agency (formerly Ontario Provincial Conference of International Union of Brick and Allied Craftsmen); Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 5 (formerly International Union of Brick & Allied Craftsmen, Local 5); Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059; Operative Plasterers Cement Masons and Restoration Steeplejacks International Association of the United States and Canada, Local 598; Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1946 and Tower Scaffold Services Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 7, 2001
This is an application for reconsideration of the Board’s decision in this matter dated March 21, 2001 that was filed by the applicant with the Board on April 20, 2001, within the time prescribed under the Board’s Rules of Procedure.
The applicant asserts that because the Board’s decision, “in effect, deprives Clifford Restoration Limited of the right to perform the disputed work in accordance with its consistent practise in the geographic area affected by the decision”, the Board ought to have conducted a hearing and received evidence in relation to certain issues over which the parties were in fundamental disagreement.
The Board had the authority under sections 99(3) and 110(18) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995, c. 1, as amended and Rules 76 and 77 to determine this matter without a hearing or viva voce evidence. The applicant submits that the applicant’s client, who was dissatisfied with earlier restoration work not done by the applicant and due to the applicant’s reputation, invited only the applicant to submit a bid to perform the work in dispute. The applicant also submits that the Board’s reference to The McBride Group decision was mistaken as that decision was irrelevant to the matter before the Board in this proceeding because there were no documents or pleadings filed by the parties in The McBride Group proceeding that submitted that the employer or area practice evidence should be limited to historic masonry restoration as opposed to general masonry work.
The Board’s analysis of the decision in The McBride Group was based on the Board’s reading of the decision, not on the pleadings or submissions that may have been filed or made to the Board in that proceeding. The Board at paragraph 11 of the decision in this matter referred to excerpts from the decision in The McBride Group to reach the conclusion it did about its applicability to the issues in this proceeding. There is nothing submitted by the applicant that would cause the Board to reconsider its decision on that ground.
The applicant suggested in its request for reconsideration that it had an established or “consistent practise in the geographic area affected by the decision” of using members of Local 598. At paragraph 12 of the Board’s March 21, 2001 decision, the Board noted:
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Stone Masonry Work being done by the applicant was the first time that the applicant had done work in Board Area 3.
The applicant does not, in its request for reconsideration, take issue with the Board’s description of the applicant’s submissions. If, as the applicant had submitted to the Board, its performance of the work in dispute was the first time the applicant had done that work in Board Area 3, then the applicant cannot have had a “consistent practise in the geographic area affected by the decision” of doing the work in dispute in a particular way.
- The Board is satisfied that there is no merit to the applicant’s request for reconsideration and it is therefore dismissed.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board