Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3502-99-JD Date: May 11, 2001
Between: 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
1Counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU seeks clarification and an amendment of the Board’s decision in this matter dated March 21, 2001 on the basis that the Board, in its decision, inadvertently failed to deal with the tending work claimed by members of Local 1059 in connection with the stone masonry restoration work assigned to members of Local 5.
2That request for clarification and correction was contained in a letter to the Board dated April 3, 2001. Counsel for the applicant filed a response to that letter on April 11, 2001 and subsequently the applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the Board’s March 21, 2001 decision. Counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU filed submissions in response to the request for reconsideration by letter dated May 2, 2001 in which the request for clarification and a correction was reiterated. The Board dismissed the applicant’s request for reconsideration by decision dated May 7, 2001 and counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU in a letter to the Board dated May 9, 2001 again requested clarification and a correction.
3Unfortunately, this panel of the Board was not apprised of the exchange of correspondence referred to above until it dealt with the request for reconsideration. As the Board did not find it necessary to seek a response from the other parties to the reconsideration request before dealing with it, the Board did not review or consider the submissions from counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU. The letter of May 9, 2001 came to the attention of this panel of the Board in the afternoon of May 9th.
4Counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU suggested that it was an oversight on the Board’s part not to have included the assignment of members of 1059 to perform tending work in respect of members of Local 5 carrying out the stone masonry restoration work. He further submits that the applicant has not taken issue with his request for clarification and an amendment.
5The applicant in its letter to the Board of April 11, 2001 acknowledges receipt of the Board’s decision of March 21, 2001 and of a copy of the April 3rd letter from counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU. The applicant goes on to indicate that it will be filing a request for reconsideration of that March 21 decision and states that it “will make further submissions to the Board, regarding the outstanding issues and/or matters, promptly, upon receipt of the Board’s decision in relation to the request for reconsideration.
6It appears to the Board that the applicant does not view the request of counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU as a mere correction or clarification since it does wish to make further submissions in respect of the issue raised by counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU. Therefore, the Board directs the applicant to deliver to counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU and file with the Board its submissions in response to the request set out in the letters from counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU dated April 3, May 2 and May 9, 2001. Those submissions must be delivered and filed on or before Tuesday, May 22, 2001. Any reply to those submissions from counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU must be delivered to the applicant and filed with the Board on or before Monday May 28, 2001. The Board will deal with the matter thereafter.
7The Board, in its March 21, 2001 decision stated at paragraphs 25 and 26 that the decision did not deal with the dispute between Local 1059 and Locals 27 & 1946 with respect to tending work associated with scaffolding erection. That decision also required a party, if it wanted to proceed with this application in respect tending work associated with scaffolding erection, to advise the other parties and the Registrar within 15 working days of the date of the decision. The Board noted that if the Registrar was not notified that a party wished to proceed with that portion of the application, then the assignment that gave rise to the dispute over tending work associated with scaffolding erection shall be deemed confirmed. The correspondence from the applicant and counsel for Local 5, Local 1059 and the BACU makes no mention of the dispute over the tending work associated with scaffolding erection. Therefore, the assignment of such disputed work is hereby confirmed.
"Harry Freedman"
for the Board