Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3361-00-R Date: April 19, 2001
Applicants: Ivan Doiron, Nick George, Tim Keefer, Larry Madill Responding Party: International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Intervenor: County Glass & Door Services
Before: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application brought pursuant to section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995 ch. 1 ("the Act") seeking the termination of the bargaining rights of the party which is the union party to the Glazier’s Provincial Collective Agreement. A representation vote has been conducted and the ballot box remains sealed. A hearing will be necessary to dispose of all of the issues in this application.
2The issues are as follows:
Was the wrong union party named in the application, and if so, was the application thus a nullity?
Was notice to the Employee Bargaining Agency required, and if so, was it given? If not, what is the effect of this fact?
Is Ivan Doiron an employee who exercises managerial functions or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations?
If so, was Mr. Doiron’s involvement in the application such that the Board should dismiss the application?
Did Mr. Duck make the statements attributed to him by the union, and if so, should the Board dismiss this application pursuant to section 63(16)?
Were the employees hired in a manner contrary to the collective agreement and with a view to terminating the responding party’s bargaining rights (the April Waterproofing argument)?
What work, if any, was being performed by Ivan Doiron, Nick George, Tim Keefer, and Larry Madill on February 15, 2000?
3With respect to the first issue, the Board notes that the collective agreement is referred to in sufficient detail in the application that it seems highly unlikely that anyone receiving a copy of it would have been misled or confused by the lack of specificity of the name of the responding party. The responding party’s letter of February 21, 2001 is instructive in this regard. The issue of a requirement to serve the Employee Bargaining Agency, in general terms, will likely be determined by the Board in another application prior to any hearing being held in this application.
4The Registrar is directed to schedule one day of hearing. If the issues with respect to issues number 1 and 2 still need to be litigated at that point, those issues will be disposed of first. Following that, the Board will hear all evidence and representations with respect to the status of Ivan Doiron. Mr. Doiron himself should be present, as should all other persons whom any party wishes to call as witnesses, but only with respect to the issue of Mr. Doiron’s status (i.e. issue number 3). If necessary, further hearing dates will be scheduled at that time to deal with the remaining issues.
5One final matter may or may not be an issue in this case. The Board has received a letter from Mr. George indicating that three of the applicants have received notice from the union that their welfare benefits have been terminated for no cause. This may be simple error or confusion on the part of one or more persons, or may be the normal operation of the plan in accordance with its own rules. However, if necessary, the Board is prepared to treat this letter as an application under section 96 alleging an unfair labour practice against the Ontario Provincial Council of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Ontario Provincial Council (“OPC”) and/or Mr. Lynch.
6The Board is not in a position to give advice or make any kind of decision at this point. The Board would observe that it is highly probable that the collective agreement requires the payment of welfare benefit premiums. Absent any other factor, the fact that a termination application has been filed does not, in and of itself, relieve the employer from complying with the terms of the collective agreement while the application is being processed.
7In the interests of clarity, the Board directs the responding party, or the OPC, to advise the Board and the applicants of whether in fact the welfare benefits of any of the applicants have been terminated and, if so, the reason for this action. If necessary, the responding party or the OPC is directed to make the necessary inquiries of the relevant affiliated bargaining agent. This statement shall be filed within 12 working days of the date of this decision.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board