International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 v. Sarnia Construction Association
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; September 12, 2001
1The Board in its decision in this matter dated August 28, 2001 made certain directions with respect to submissions received from the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 539 (“Local 539”) with respect to the Board’s decision in this matter dated July 26, 2001, the request for reconsideration of the July 26th decision filed by the proponent and also dismissed requests for reconsideration of that decision made in the form of letters to the Registrar from the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 663 (“Local 663”) and from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1592 (“Local 1592”).
2Counsel for the applicant, by letter to the Registrar dated August 31, 2001 (and only brought to my attention on September 10, 2001) acknowledged receipt of the Board’s decision and requested copies of the submissions that had been made by Local 539 and the requests that had been made by Local 663 and Local 1592.
3The Board directs the Registrar to provide the applicant with copies of the material that had been filed by Local 539, Local 663 and Local 1592.
4Local 539, by formal application filed September 7, 2001 requested reconsideration of the Board’s July 26th decision and made detailed submissions in accordance with the Board’s August 28th decision. That request for reconsideration, in effect, submits that the applicant had used the wrong figures when it had made its calculations and that the correct group for purposes of comparison were the employees represented by the Local 539. Local 539 submits that the employees it represents would have a reduction of 11.4% under the project agreement, using the formula that the Board applied. If Local 539 is correct and if the Board does reconsider its July 26th decision by adjusting the wage rate rather than by exercising the discretion the proponent submitted the Board has under section 163.1(9)4 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, as am. and declare the project agreement in force without any amendment, the adjusted wage rate would likely be $30.45, or 97% of the ICI provincial agreement rate.
5As Local 539 mailed a copy of its formal application for reconsideration containing its factual submissions to the applicant and the other parties when it filed its application with the Board, those submissions will be deemed to have been delivered on Friday September 14, 2001. (See Rule 23 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure.)
6The Board, in its August 28th decision directed the applicant and proponent to file their submissions with respect to the representations made by Local 539 within five days of their receipt of those submissions. That time for filing submissions remains unchanged. The time for filing submissions with respect to the proponent’s request for reconsideration also remains unchanged.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board