Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3427-00-R Date: May 10, 2001
Between: The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local Union 557, Applicant v. StonCor Group, RPM Canada, Responding Party.
Before: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1This is an application for certification filed under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ("the Act"). A hearing into this matter is scheduled for May 28, 2001.
2The Board is in receipt of a request by the responding party dated May 1, 2001 in which two issues are raised. The first is a request for further particulars; specifically a request for the identity of a contractor that carried out the work at issue. The responding party seeks an adjournment in order to receive and consider the requested particulars. The responding party's response submissions in this application were originally due May 11, 2001. By letter dated May 8, 2001 the applicant provided a list of contractors and job sites that appears to comply with the responding party's request.
3Having regard to these circumstances, the request for adjournment is denied. The responding party shall have until Friday, May 18, 2001 to file its response. To the extent that any further requests arise in respect of particulars, they may be raised before the panel scheduled to hear this application.
4The second of the responding party's requests is that the Ontario Painting Contractors Association (the "OPCA") not be granted standing to intervene in this application. The responding party also requests that the OPCA file particulars of the factual basis for the position outlined in its intervention i.e., that it is aware of members of the OPCA performing the work in question using members of the applicant.
5The OPCA has filed a letter with the Board. It advises that it does not intend to call evidence and relies on the evidence of the applicant. It further advises that it may be interested in calling evidence in reply.
6Further, and in the alternative, the responding party submits that if the OPCA is entitled to intervene then other EBA's ought to be provided with notice as well. The reason asserted by the responding party is that the work in question is not captured within the Minister's designation referable to the applicant and the work is properly captured within the designation of other trades identified by the responding party.
7The applicant objects to other EBA's being provided with notice as it asserts that even if the work at issue may also be part of the designation of another trade, that fact is not material to this application.
8The Board is not prepared to grant either of the responding party's requests. The issue of whether the OPCA should be given status to intervene and the extent to which it can participate in light of its pleadings and submissions can be raised before the panel scheduled to hear this application. The Board notes that the relevant employer bargaining agency and employee bargaining agency are given notice of every application for certification.
9The Board cannot discern a good reason to give notice to any other EBA's. The issue is whether the persons who are the subject of the application perform work which brings them within the definition of the trades set out in the designation. The answer is "yes" or "no". If the answer is "no", the Board will not determine which other trade (or trades) classification(s) the employees in question fall into. In the circumstances of this application, the OPCA has an arguable direct interest in participating that other EBA's do not.
10This panel of the Board is not seized.
"Marilyn Silverman"
for the Board