1220-01-U International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25; Peter Sartorius; Michael Connolly, Applicants v. Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 25, 2001
1This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (“the Act”). It represents another phase in the dispute among various persons and groups within the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (“IUBAC”) and the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (“BACU”). This application is brought by International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Locals 6, 7, and 25 (“Locals 6, 7, and 25”) against the Ontario Provincial Council of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers alleging a violation of sections 74, 75, 76, 147, 149, and 167.
2Counsel for the applicant Locals 6, 7, and 25 has asked that this matter be scheduled on an expedited basis. Much of this application deals with subject matter which should be dealt with as soon as reasonably possible, but which in itself does not appear to require extraordinary expedition. For instance, the applicant complains of the manner in which bargaining and ratification was conducted, but seeks only limited relief in respect of the collective agreement which resulted from it. In the absence of a request that the collective agreement be somehow nullified and the process recommenced, much of the Board’s ultimate view of the process will be relevant only in 2004. I do not mean to ignore the fact that the applicant argues that the manner in which bargaining and ratification was conducted is part of the pattern of “differential treatment” (to use a neutral term) of Locals 6, 7, and 25.
3On the other hand, some issues do raise a concern which might affect the Board’s manner of scheduling. Those provisions which have an effect on the employment opportunities, the net wages (if there are different sets of dues collected), and the setting of local wage rates through “job targeting provisions”, for the members of Locals 6, 7 and 25 are of a somewhat different nature. Simply put, there is a difference between disputes which affect primarily the institutional parties and those which have an effect on individual construction workers. Although it would be difficult to extract those elements from the complaint, the Board may well do so to hear those portions on an expedited basis.
4The responses and any proposed interventions are to be filed on or before August 8, 2001. By that date all parties wishing to participate in this application (including the applicant) are directed to file their response or intervention. In addition, all parties are directed to provide the Board with the following:
a realistic estimate of the number of witnesses each party plans to call, and the number of hours or days that each witness will take (divided among chief and cross);
any preliminary matters and the time argument (or evidence) would take on each; and
a schedule of dates on which they are available to attend, and the dates of any fixed holiday plans of counsel or named witnesses. (The Board will take into consideration the dates proposed, but is not limited by them.)
5I am seized of this matter.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board