1549-00-JD; 1550-00-JD International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local 736, Applicant v. The On-Site Group Inc., United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1916-Millwrights, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members, G. Pickell and A. Haward.
APPREANCES: S.B.D. Wahl and T. Armstrong for the applicant; Stephen J. Goodwin, Keith Martin, Fred B. Reaume (Millwrights Association) for The On-Site Group Inc.; Harold Caley/ Doug Wray and Claude Cournoyer/Andy Dobbie for Millwrights Local 1916.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 21, 2001
These are two complaints made pursuant to section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 as amended (the "Act") concerning work assignments. Board File No. 1549-00-JD relates to work assigned by The On-Site Group Inc. ("On-Site") at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc. in Cambridge, Ontario ("Toyota"). Board File No. 1550-00-JD relates to work assigned by On-Site at Budd Canada Ltd. in Kitchener, Ontario ("Budd").
On-Site acknowledges that it is bound to the provincial ICI agreements with the Millwrights District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and its affiliated local unions (the "Millwrights") and with the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers and Ironworkers District Council of Ontario and its affiliated union locals (the "Ironworkers").
Board File No. 1549-00-JD – Toyota
The work in dispute involved repair and maintenance to the slat conveyors at Toyota at Cambridge in Board Area No. 6. The work was done during a plant shutdown over an eight day period.
The work required the removal and replacement of various components of the conveyor system, including the slat chain, top ear bar, lower wear bar, realignment of the conveyor, including the drive and take-up shafts, and correcting any problem with welds on the conveyor legs to the jack plates. It was not necessary to take out the flooring as there was access for maintenance with approximately five feet of clearance.
The work was assigned to the Millwrights by On-Site. It is On-Site's position that it assigned the work according to area practice and the International Agreement between the Millwrights and the Ironworkers with respect to conveyors.
Having considered all of the material before the Board and the submissions of the parties made at the consultation, the Board upholds the assignment of the work to the Millwrights.
Board File No. 1550-00-JD – Budd
The work in dispute was performed at Budd in Kitchener, Ontario in Board Area No. 6. On-Site performed the work under sub-contract from the E-cote manufacturer, MetoKote Corporation. The disputed work relates to Phase 2 of the E-Cote System. The total project, Phase 1 and Phase 2 included two overhead mono-rail conveyors. Phase 1 was completed in 1999. Phase 2 was done in 2000 and involved approximately 25% of the total project.
The supporting structure for the two overhead mono-rail conveyors was built during phase 1. The structural steel in phase 1 was erected by the Ironworkers. The work done during phase 1 was done according to the conveyor agreement and the area practice in Board Area No. 6. The dispute arose over the work done in phase 2, the mono-rail for the Mercedes line. All of that work was assigned to the Millwrights.
At the time On-Site did the phase 1 work the phase 2 work for the second mono-rail, the Mercedes line, had not been awarded.
On-Site assigned the work on the first phase in accordance with the conveyor agreement, the area practice and its own practice and preference. The conveyor agreement between the Millwrights and Ironworkers sets out the work on conveyors to be performed by Millwrights and by Ironworkers. It does not provide for composite crews or 50-50 crews.
Having reviewed all of the materials and submissions the Board finds that On-Site incorrectly assigned all of the work to the Millwrights on phase 2 of the E-Coat System at Budd. The work on phase 2 should have been assigned in accordance with the conveyor agreement. Work identified as Ironworkers' jurisdiction in the conveyor agreement should be assigned to Ironworkers. Since the structural steel for the two lines had been installed during phase 1 (in accordance with the conveyor agreement) the amount of work that should have been assigned to the Ironworkers during phase 2 would have been considerably less than the work performed by the Ironworkers during phase 1.
"Inge M. Stamp"
for the Board