Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
File No.: 2148-00-U Date: September 20, 2001
Applicants: Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis, Luigi Scodellaro, and Robert Watson Responding Parties: International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, John T. Flynn and Joe Bognar
Before: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is a complaint brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995 ch.1 (the "Act"). A decision has been rendered on the major issue in this application. Two requests remain before the Board. The applicant seeks to have the application relisted for hearing to deal with certain matters not dealt with in the Board's previous decision. There is also an issue about the status of the proposed intervenors, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Locals 6, 7, and 25 ("Locals 6, 7, and 25") to participate, or to continue to participate in this application.
2In response to the Board's request to identify both the "aspects of the application" and the relief sought by the applicant, the applicant simply listed a number of paragraphs in its request for relief. Having reviewed those paragraphs, the Board has some question in its own mind about whether it would in fact grant that relief or exercise its discretion not to inquire into the factual basis for some of the relief sought. The Board's reaction, although perhaps a superficial one, to the various requests for relief is as follows:
Paragraph 1. This appears to be a matter already considered in Board File No. 2532-99-U in a decision dated May 2, 2001.
Paragraph 4. This does seem to be a remedial matter that could be addressed on the basis of the matters dealt with in the original consultation.
Paragraph 5. It appears that, to find a violation of these sections would likely require more facts than the Board considered in the May 2 decision, and might have to be dealt with by way of a hearing, rather than a continuation of a consultation. When the only relief sought is a declaration, the Board is reluctant to engage in that sort of inquiry for what would be a largely academic exercise.
Paragraph 6. This would certainly require evidence before the Board could grant such relief. In light of the remedies already ordered, it does appear that this relief is largely punitive. The Board questions the value of proceeding with that claim by the applicant.
Paragraph 8. The Board's jurisdiction to order such damages and costs is not clear.
Paragraph 9. This too appears to be a matter that can be addressed on the basis of the original consultation.
3Given the Board's doubt about proceeding with the bulk of the relief still sought, it will be necessary to hear from the parties on these points. The Board has required written submissions often enough from these parties, and will, in this case, hold one further day to hear the parties' arguments on these issues. However, in terms of prioritizing the Board's time and that of the parties, it will not be scheduled until after Board File No. 1904-99-U, 3003-00-U, 3331-00-U and 1220-01-U are disposed of.
4The other issue is the right of Locals 6, 7, and 25 to participate. This is not really a matter of reconsidering the Board's decision at the hearing of the consultation. There was no finding that the Locals had a legal interest in the proceeding, but that they would be given standing as interested parties to appear on that one day. Notwithstanding the lengthy submissions of the Locals, there is nothing in these submissions which identifies a direct and legal interest. Perhaps the real basis for the Locals' desire to be present in the proceedings is contained in paragraph 4 of its December 6, 2000 letter:
While the IU has an interest in supervising the conduct of the OPC as one of its affiliates, the interest of the intervenors is that of constituent members of a council of unions whose interests are not being represented by the applicants.
This is undoubtedly true. However, that interest is not engaged by the complaint in this application. It is engaged, and will be fully dealt with, in the applications listed above which will be heard before this matter in any event. The Board therefore denies status to Locals 6, 7, and 25 in this application. On the one day of hearing for the purposes listed above, it will not be a party. After the Board decides what, if anything, it will do after that date, Locals 6, 7, and 25 may seek to establish intervenor status, if they believe they can demonstrate an interest in the proceedings as they are framed at that time.
5I remain seized of this application.
"David A. McKee"
for the Board