1388-01-G The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 46, (Local Union 1891), Applicant v. Dimax Construction Limited, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and A. Haward.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 30, 2001
This is a referral of a grievance to the Board for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, (the “Act”). The referral was made on August 10, 2001. Counsel for the applicant, in a letter to the Board dated August 21, 2001 states that the responding party was served on August 22, 2001 by the applicant having delivered a copy of the necessary documents required by Rule 155 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure to the responding party by giving them to Purolator Courier on August 21, 2001 who assured the applicant that they would be delivered on August 22, 2001 by no later than 4:00 p.m. The Registrar sent an amended Confirmation of Filing of a Referral of Grievance to Arbitration (Form B-67) to the responding party by Courier on August 22 at the address set out in the letter from counsel for the applicant.
As of the date of this decision, the responding party has not filed a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate (Form A-87). The Board’s Rules of Procedure explicitly stipulate the consequences of failing to comply with the filing requirements contained in the Rules.
Section 133 of the Act provides, in part:
(7) The Board is not required to hold a hearing if the responding party does not file any material.
(8) If the Board does not hold a hearing in the circumstances described in subsection (7), the Board may determine the matter with reference only to the material filed by the party referring the grievance.
(9) If the Board accepts the referral, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the difference or allegation raised in the grievance referred to it, including any question as to whether the matter is arbitrable, and subsections 48(10) and (12) to (20) apply with necessary modifications to the Board and to the enforcement of the decision of the Board.
- In addition, the Chair of the Board has the authority to make rules to give effect to the various statutory powers conferred upon the Board. Section 110(17) of the Act provides:
The chair may make rules governing the Board’s practice and procedure and the exercise of its powers and prescribing such forms as the chair considers advisable.
Furthermore, the Board has very wide powers to require a party to provide particulars, documents, and any other information the Board deems necessary. (See sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Act.)
The Board’s Rules in respect of section 133 proceedings place a substantial burden on the applicant. As well as filing certain material with the Board, the applicant must provide to the responding party:
A copy of the application
A copy of the Notice of grievance referral.
A blank copy of the Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend (Form A-87, i.e. the form the responding party requires to file its response.
A blank response form for the responding party’s use.
A copy of the Board’s Rules with respect to section 133 referrals (i.e. Part VIII of the Rules, being Rules 143-163) and Information Bulletin No. 20 which provides the responding party with further information about the process involved in a section 133 application (including the consequences of default).
The only thing a responding party must do to avoid default proceedings is to complete the Form A-87 supplied by the applicant and deliver it to the Board and the applicant within five days of the date of the Board’s Confirmation of Filing (Form B-67). Form A-87 requires little more than the responding party’s name and address and an assertion that the responding party wishes to defend against the grievance referral. The substance of that defence is contained in the response which is not due until 9:30 a.m. on the day set for hearing.
The Board’s Rules require quick responses from responding parties in many sorts of applications. In an application for certification, for example, a responding employer (who is often unfamiliar with proceedings under the Act) must respond within two days after the application was served on it. In a section 133 proceeding, the responding party has some relationship with the applicant and therefore should have some understanding of the contractual and statutory context in which a grievance referral arises. In any event, the Form B-67 faxed to the responding party contains the following warning in bold print:
The failure to file a timely Request in the way required by the Board’s Rules of Procedure may result in the referral being decided without a hearing and without further notice to the defaulting party.
- The Board’s Rules deal specifically with the consequences of failing to file the Form A-87. Rules 160 to 162, which are part of the Rules package delivered to the responding party by the applicant, provide as follows:
If a responding party does not deliver and file a “Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend” (Form A-87) in the way required by these rules, he or she may automatically be deemed to have accepted all of the facts stated in the application, and the Board may cancel a hearing (if one is scheduled), and decide the case (or part of the case) upon the material before it without further notice.
Where the facts stated in the application are deemed to be true and the Board considers that it can make a finding of liability, but cannot determine the question of damages, the Board may decide the liability issue under Rule 160 and leave the damages issue to be determined at an oral hearing.
Where the Board decides or has decided a case (or part of a case) under Rule 160, the responding party may not file a Request or a response, or take any other step in connection with the application, other than a reconsideration application, except with the permission of the Board.
- Accordingly, we shall proceed on the basis that all of the allegations of fact set out in the referral to the Board and in the grievance material have been accepted by the responding party and therefore can be relied on by the Board in making a determination of this matter. The Board therefore finds that:
(a) the responding party is bound to the collective agreement between the Ontario Painting Contractors Association Acoustical Association Ontario Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and The Ontario Council of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades effective May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2004 (the “Collective Agreement”) by reason of a certificate issued by the Board to the applicant dated September 16, 1999 (Board File No. 1319-99-R);
(b) the responding party has violated the Collective Agreement by failing to remit benefit contributions and failing to pay the proper wage/piecework rates as and when required by the Collective Agreement commencing June 1, 2001 to date;
(c) the responding party has failed to apply the full terms and conditions of the Collective Agreement to all employees who perform work covered by the Collective Agreement at its projects and in particular, it:
i) failed to make the proper required payments to the welfare, pension, vacation pay funds and the other various funds and plans and make deductions for union dues and administrative dues check-off and remit same as and when required by the Collective Agreement, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Articles 8, 18, 19 and 20 of Appendix “B” to the Collective Agreement; and
ii) failed to pay the proper wage/piecework rates, overtime rates of pay, vacation pay and statutory holiday pay and other premium rates of pay as set forth in the Collective Agreement and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Articles 5, 8, 9, 1, 13, 14, 15, 17, 17A, 20, 23, 24 and 25 of Appendix “B”.
(d) one of the members, Steven Hollas, worked a total of 58 hours at the above mentioned jobsite for which he was not paid. Another member, Gene Slade, worked a total of 154 hours at the above mentioned jobsite for which he was paid an hourly wage of $22.00 instead of the rate of $25.08 an hour which is required by the Collective Agreement for damages of $1,928.96;
(e) the responding party did not remit any benefit contributions for any hours worked by the above mentioned individuals, as required by the Collective Agreement for damages of $1,083.32
- In view of the Board’s findings in paragraph 10 above, the Board therefore:
(a) declares that Dimax Construction Limited is bound to the collective agreement between the Ontario Painting Contractors Association Acoustical Association Ontario Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario and the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and The Ontario Council of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades effective May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2004 (the “Collective Agreement”);
(b) declares that Dimax Construction Limited violated the Collective Agreement;
(c) declares that Dimax Construction Limited is liable to pay the applicant damages for the said violations of the Collective Agreement in the amount of $3,012.28 together with an additional $214.00 pursuant to section 133 of the Act; and
(d) directs Dimax Construction Limited to pay forthwith to the applicant the sum of $3,226.28.
- The hearing scheduled for September 4, 2001 is hereby cancelled.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board