0118-01-PR International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530, Applicant v. Sarnia Construction Association as agent for Shell Canada Products; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers Local Union 128; Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada Local Union 23; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local Union 1256; Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons International Association of the United States and Canada Local Union 598; International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local Union 95; International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers Local Union 700; Labourers International Union of North America Local Union 1089; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 1592; International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union 793; International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Local Union 1590; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local Union 663; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local Union 787; Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 539; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local 853; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America Local Union 880, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J.G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 31, 2001
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 (“Local 530”) has challenged a proposed project agreement initiated by the Sarnia Construction Association as agent for Shell Canada Projects (the “Proponent”) by giving the Board written notice of its challenge by letter dated May 22, 2001 that was filed with the Board on that date.
The Proponent, by letter to the Board dated May 17, 2001, advised the Board that it had given notice that the proposed project agreement had been approved to the bargaining agents who were required to receive that notice and provided the Board with the material required by section 163.1(8)5 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995, c. 1, as am. (the “Act”). Therefore the notice of challenge to the proposed project agreement given by Local 530 was timely. As a result, the Board is required to determine under section 163.1(9)1 whether to declare that the proposed project agreement is in force or declare that it shall not come into force.
Counsel for Local 530 filed additional submissions with respect to its challenge by letter dated May 28, 2001. Those additional submissions suggest that Local 530 is taking the position that the proposed project agreement affects it in the manner described by section 163.1(9)2(ii) of the Act. Section 163.1(9)2 provides:
Paragraphs 3 and 4 apply if,
i. the bargaining agent challenging the proposed project agreement gave notice of disapproval of the project agreement, and
ii. the proposed project agreement would result in a reduction in the total wages and benefits, expressed as a rate, of an employee represented by the bargaining agent challenging the project agreement that is larger, proportionally, than the largest reduction that would apply to an employee represented by a bargaining agent that gave notice of approval of the project agreement.
Paragraph 3 of 163.1(9) permits the Board to make an order:
amending the proposed project agreement so that no reduction in the total wages and benefits, expressed as a rate, of an employee represented by the bargaining agent challenging the project agreement is greater, proportionally, than the largest reduction that would apply to an employee represented by a bargaining agent that gave notice of approval of the project agreement,
and declaring the proposed project agreement as amended is in force, if the Board considers it appropriate to do so. Paragraph 4 of section 163.1(9) allows the Board to make an order declaring that the project agreement shall not come into force if the Board considers it inappropriate to amend the collective agreement in the manner described in paragraph 3.
Local 530 submits that that the Board should make an order declaring that the project agreement shall not come into force and in the alternative, proposes that the project agreement be amended. It appears that Local 530 is not suggesting that the Proponent failed to meet the requirements of sections 163.1(1) to 163.1(8) of the Act and therefore does not rely on section 163.1(9)5 as a basis for submitting that the Board should make an order declaring that the project agreement shall not come into force.
It appears to us that the issue between Local 530 and the responding parties is whether the conditions described in section 163.1(9)2(ii) exist under the proposed project agreement, and if they do exist, whether the Board would consider it appropriate to make an order amending the proposed project agreement. Local 530 has outlined in a general way the basis for claiming that its members will have a significantly greater and disproportionate reduction in their wages and benefits then the members of the other trades who approved the proposed project agreement, but submits because it does not have access to the collective agreements of the other trades, it is “not able to provide exact details of the relative rate of loss to members of the applicant compared with the rate of loss for members of the other bargaining agents.” It does go on to suggest that because the Local 530 normal work week and overtime rate differ from the other trades’ agreements, its members would have a wage reduction of 13.03% compared to the 5% reduction the other trades have accepted under the proposed project agreement.
In our view, the issues between the parties can be determined by way of written submissions. Wage rates and benefits under the trades’ collective agreements are matters of record. The calculations necessary to make the comparison can be set out in written submissions, together with any additional items that the parties wish the Board to consider in determining the matter, including whether it is appropriate for the Board to amend the proposed project agreement to deal with the alleged disproportionate reduction claimed by Local 530 and if so, the form of that amendment and thereupon declare the amended project agreement in force or whether the Board should declare that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force since it is inappropriate for the Board to amend the proposed project agreement because the magnitude of the amendment is so great or for some other reasons that Local 530 might advance.
Therefore, the Board directs any of the parties that wish to make submissions with respect to the challenge filed by Local 530 to set out their positions in comprehensive submissions to the Board within the time set out in paragraph 8 below. If Local 530 requires an order from the Board directing the other parties to provide it with the necessary information about their wages and benefits because those parties have refused to do so and such information is otherwise unavailable, that is a matter that the Board can address, if necessary.
The Board has fixed the following timetable for receipt of submissions:
a) Any party affected by the challenge made by Local 530 that wishes to participate in this proceeding must notify the Board and Local 530 not later than Wednesday, June 6, 2001 that it is going to do so.
b) Local 530 must file with the Registrar and deliver to the other parties that have notified it of their desire to participate its comprehensive written submissions on all matters that it wishes the Board to consider not later than Friday, June 15, 2001.
c) Any party who wishes to respond to the submissions filed by Local 530 must file with the Board and deliver to Local 530 those submissions in response not later than Monday June 25, 2001.
d) Local 530 must file with the Board and deliver to the other parties that have notified it of their desire to participate its reply, if any, to those parties’ submissions not later than Wednesday July 4, 2001.
Should Local 530 require an order to compel the other parties to produce the information it needs about their collective agreements, it must first demonstrate that it cannot obtain that information on its own and that the other parties have either failed or refused to provide that information to it voluntarily. Local 530 must make its request to the Board for an order and advise the parties that have notified Local 530 of their desire to participate not later than June 6, 2001. The Board will not consider any submissions or requests that have not been filed or delivered in accordance with the directions set out herein, except with leave of the Board.
- This panel of the Board remains seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board