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; July 26, 2001
The Sarnia Construction Association as agent for Shell Canada Projects (the “proponent”) undertook the process contemplated by section 163.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, as am. (the “Act”) to secure a project agreement with the applicant and the other responding parties. The applicant filed a timely challenge to the proposed project agreement under section 163.1(9) of the Act after earlier having given notice of disapproval of it. Although all of the responding parties received notice of this application and were directed by the Board’s decision of May 31, 2001 to notify the Board if they wished to participate, only the proponent did so. The applicant submits that since the proposed project agreement would result in a reduction in the total wages and benefits of the employees it represents that is larger proportionately than the reduction that would apply to employees represented by the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 (“Local 95”) (one of the bargaining agents that had given notice of approval of the proposed project agreement) the Board should either order that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force or alternatively, should make an order amending the proposed project agreement so as to decrease the reduction in wages and benefits for the employees represented by the applicant by eliminating the standard work week in the proposed project agreement or by changing the rates payable to the employees the applicant represents.
When a bargaining agent that did not give notice of approval of the proposed project agreement files a timely notice with the Board under section 163.1(9) challenging the proposed project agreement, the Board is required by section 163.1(9)1 of the Act to make an order declaring that the proposed project agreement is in force or make an order declaring that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force. Section 163.1(9)2 of the Act establishes two pre-conditions to the Board making an order under sections 163.1(9)1 after a timely challenge has been filed. 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.
The applicant gave notice of disapproval of the proposed project agreement by written notice dated May 2, 2001. Therefore the applicant has met the requirement set out in section 163.1(9) 2(i) of the Act. It appears that the applicant and the proponent disagree over whether the condition set out in section 163.1(9)2(ii) exists.
The applicant submits that although employees represented by other trades have a larger reduction applied to them than applies to employees represented by Local 95 (for example, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1592 (“Millwrights”) and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 663 (“Local 663”)) neither the Millwrights nor Local 663 gave notice of approval of the proposed project agreement. The Millwrights gave notice of disapproval of the proposed project agreement. Local 663 did not submit any notice whatsoever in response to the notice of the proposed project agreement issued by the proponent. The employees represented by Local 95 are the ones with the largest reduction in wages and benefits represented by a bargaining agent that gave notice of approval of the proposed project agreement. In other words, while employees represented by other bargaining agents may have reductions applying to them that are greater than the reductions applying to the employees represented by Local 95, those other bargaining agents did not give a notice of approval of the proposed project agreement whereas Local 95 did. The proponent did not challenge the applicant’s submission that the employees represented by Local 95 were the employees to whom the largest reduction applied represented by a bargaining agent who gave notice of approval of the proposed project agreement and are therefore the employees with whom the comparison contemplated by section 163.1(9)2(ii) of the Act must be made.
The proponent submits that the employees represented by the applicant have had the same reduction in wages and benefits apply to them as will apply to all the other employees affected by the proposed project agreement. The proponent submits that the proposed project agreement reduces the base hourly rate for all employees who will work under that agreement by 5%. It argues that since a 5% reduction in wages is the same proportional reduction applicable to all employees regardless of which bargaining agent represents them, there has been no disproportionate impact on the employees represented by the applicant. The proponent also submits that the basis of the applicant’s claim of a disproportionate reduction in wages and benefits is the standard work week in the proposed project agreement. Under the ICI provincial agreement by which the applicant is bound (the Principal Agreement between The Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers & the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario) employees represented by the applicant have a 36 hour regular work week and are paid double time for all hours worked in excess of 36 hours a week. Under the proposed project agreement, the regular work week is 40 hours with an overtime premium payable for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The proponent argues that the change in the standard work week from 36 to 40 hours is not a proper factor to use in determining whether there has been a reduction in the employees’ total wages and benefits, and if there has, whether those employees have been affected disproportionately by the reduction.
The proponent submits that section 163.1(9)2(ii), when referring to “a reduction in the total wages and benefits, expressed as a rate”, was not intended to include considerations other than the straight time hourly rate paid to employees and the benefits package provided for employees. It argues that there are any number of items in a collective agreement that might have an impact on the remuneration an employee may receive, such as travel pay, call out pay, or reporting pay. It suggests that it would be absurd to try and express such variables in working conditions that have a monetary component as a rate when attempting to assess the impact of the proposed project agreement on employees who work under a number of different collective agreements, each of which might have different conditions that affect the ultimate compensation an employee may receive. The proponent also submits that the applicant has not been able to express the change in the standard work week as a rate (which is required by section 163.1(9)2(ii) in order to make the requisite comparison) providing even more support for the argument that hours of work is an irrelevant consideration in determining whether the proposed project agreement disproportionately affects some employees.
The Board in Sarnia Construction Association, [1999] OLRB Rep. Sept./Oct. 884 accepted the applicants’ argument in that case, without setting out any analysis of the issue, that changing the standard work week affected the total wages and benefits of employees. In that case, the applicants’ principal basis for claiming a disproportionate reduction in total wages and benefits was an increase in the number of hours an employee would work in the standard work week before being eligible for an overtime premium. In our view, to suggest that increasing the normal work week for employees and thereby depriving those employees of premium pay for the additional hours that have been added to their work week does not affect “the total wages and benefits” of those employees ignores a fundamental aspect of an employee’s compensation.
The hours of work for which an employee is paid straight time and the hours of work for which that employee is paid a premium rate are important elements in determining the wages paid to that employee. For example, if one employee’s normal work week is 40 hours at the rate of $10.00 an hour with a premium of double time for hours worked in excess of the normal work week and another employee’s normal work week is 35 hours at the rate of $10.00 per hour with the same premium for hours worked in excess of the normal work week, it is obvious that the second employee is receiving greater “total wages and benefits” than the first employee. One need only compare them using the same base. The first employee would be paid $400.00 for working his or her normal work week of 40 hours. The second employee would be paid $450.00 for working that same number of hours (35 hours at $10.00 and 5 hours at $20.00). Therefore, if that second employee’s normal work week was increased to 40 hours without any adjustment in his or her hourly rate, with the overtime premium becoming payable only after 40 hours rather than 35 hours, that second employee would then be paid $400.00 for working 40 hours a week rather than $450.00. That second employee would have had his or her total wages reduced by $50.00 or approximately 11%. Expressed as a rate, the first employee’s average hourly rate for a 40 hour week is $10.00 per hour while that second employee’s average hourly rate for a 40 hour week (where double time is paid for all hours worked in excess of 35 hours a week) would be $11.25. Expressed as a rate, changing an employee’s average hourly rate from $11.25 to $10.00 would result in a reduction of $1.25 per hour or approximately 11%.
Using the example of the previous paragraph, if the hourly wage rate for both employees was reduced by 5% and the work week was increased to 40 hours a week in which premium pay for hours worked in excess of the normal work week became payable only after 40 hours, the first employee’s hourly rate would be reduced from $10.00 to $9.50, with a weekly reduction from $400.00 to $380.00 or 5%. The second employee’s nominal hourly rate would be reduced by the same amount (i.e. 5% or from $10.00 to $9.50) but that employee’s hourly rate based on a 40-hour work week would be reduced from $11.25 to $9.50, with a weekly reduction from $450.00 to $380.00 or approximately 16%. Thus, as a matter of principle, applying a straight percentage reduction to employees who have the same normal hours of work imposes the same proportional reduction on all those employees, but where that same straight percentage reduction applies to the nominal hourly rate of all employees, but some of those employees have their normal work week increased with premium pay becoming payable only when they work in excess of that lengthened work week, the employees who have had their normal work week increased have had a greater proportional reduction of their total wages and benefits than the reduction of the total wages and benefits for employees who have maintained their normal work week with only a straight percentage reduction in their hourly rate.
As further support to its argument that the Board should disregard the change in the normal work week that would result under the proposed project agreement, the proponent submitted that taking into account a change in the normal work week would require the Board to consider any number of other components of a collective agreement that have some monetary aspect. The proponent argued:
It is our position that the wording of that section, requiring an examination of “total wages and benefits, expressed as a rate” was not intended to, and cannot logically, include considerations other than the straight-time hourly rate paid to an employee, as well as any benefit package paid to or on behalf of an employee. To include any other considerations creates an alarming “slippery slope” issue, with no indication of where the inclusion of considerations beyond the straight-time hourly rate and benefit package are to cease.
For instance, on Local 530’s argument, the amount paid for, inter alia, travel, reporting pay, callout pay or even the amount of time permitted for breaks should all be included in determining whether the members of any one bargaining agent have been disproportionately affected by the Project Agreement.
- We disagree. The concept of “total wages and benefits expressed as a rate” must relate to the monetary elements of the collective agreement such as wages, vacation pay and as the proponent suggests, “the benefit package paid to or on behalf of an employee”. That concept also includes, in our view, those normal recurring events that have a clear calculable monetary impact on the weekly pay of all employees, such as an employee’s normal work week. For purposes of this case, it is not necessary for the Board to attempt to draw the line between what will and what will not be considered in making the determination as to whether certain elements of a proposed project agreement have affected the employees’ “total wages and benefits, expressed as a rate”. As the applicant pointed out in its submissions:
While we agree that factors other than the overtime provisions conceivably might affect the total wages and benefits payable to an employee, this issue does not arise under the proposed project agreement. The only changes to the provincial agreement that would affect the total wages and benefits are those addressed in our original submissions—the five per cent cut in base wages, the standardization of the workweek to 40 hours and the provision of time and half for the first hour of overtime worked.
The Board notes that although the applicant did refer to the change in the overtime premium rate from double time to time and a half for the first hour of overtime worked, the applicant’s calculation of the disproportionate impact of the proposed project agreement expressed as a rate on the employees it represents did not include any consideration of the change in the overtime premium. The applicant based its comparison on the wages an employee would be paid over the normal work week, and determined an average hourly rate for all employees if they had worked 40 hours under the ICI provincial agreement with what their average hourly rate would be if they had worked 40 hours under the proposed project agreement.
In our view, the applicant’s calculations of the impact of the proposed project agreement on the employees it represents supports our conclusion that the Board should not take into account conditions that are not normal recurring events even when such conditions might well have a monetary component. Conditions that do not normally arise on a weekly or biweekly periodic basis or contingent events that may or may not arise and only have an effect on an individual employee’s wages when they do occur are not elements that the Board should consider when assessing the impact of a proposed project agreement on employees’ total wages and benefits. Thus, since it appears that the proposed project agreement contemplates that overtime will not be regularly scheduled (see section 10(c) of the proposed project agreement), it seems to us that overtime for all employees represented by the applicant would fall into the category of a condition that is not a normal recurring event. Indeed, the applicant itself has not factored the change in the overtime premium payable for the first hour of overtime worked in its calculation of the “total wages and benefits” rate payable to the employees it represents. Therefore, the change in the overtime premium rate is not a factor that the Board has taken into consideration in assessing the disproportionate impact of the proposed project agreement on employees represented by the applicant.
The applicant has provided a calculation of the weekly wages under the ICI provincial agreement for the employees it represents and a similar calculation of the weekly wages under the ICI provincial agreement of the employees represented by Local 95 for a 40 hour week. (According to the proponent, under both the applicant’s and Local 95’s ICI provincial agreements, the normal work week was 36 hours with double time payable for all hours worked in excess of that normal work week.) The proponent has taken no issue with the applicant’s calculations. The applicant has demonstrated that the employees it represents would earn $1741.08 (inclusive of benefits) for working 40 hours under their ICI provincial agreement, resulting in an average hourly rate of $43.53. The employees represented by Local 95 would earn $1581.44 for working 40 hours under their ICI provincial agreement, resulting in an average hourly rate of $39.54. Under the proposed project agreement, employees represented by the applicant would earn $1513.81 for working a 40 hour week, or $37.85 an hour (inclusive of benefits) while the employees represented by Local 95 would earn $1440.40 for working a 40 hour week, or $36.01 an hour. The applicant has calculated the reduction in total wages and benefits for the employees it represents as 13.1% and the reduction in total wages and benefits for the employees represented by Local 95 as 9.0%.
Having regard to the calculations made by the applicant we are satisfied that the applicant has established that 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 [applicant] that is larger, proportionally, than the…reduction that would apply to an employee represented by [Local 95], a bargaining agent that gave notice of approval of the project agreement.” Therefore, we find that the applicant has established that the condition set out in section 163.1(9)2(ii) of the Act exists.
As a result of the Board’s finding in paragraph 13 above, the Board must now determine whether to make an order contemplated by section 163.1(9)3 amending the proposed project agreement and declaring the proposed project agreement, as amended is in force, make an order pursuant to section 163.1(9)4 declaring that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force or exercise the discretion the proponent submits is conferred on the Board by section 163.1(9)4 and refuse to make an order declaring that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force. If the Board had the discretion under section 163.1(9)4 to refuse to make an order declaring that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force as the proponent submits, then the Board would be required by section 163.1(9)1 of the Act to make an order declaring that the proposed project agreement is in force. Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of section 163.1(9) of the Act provide:
The Board shall make an order either declaring that the proposed project agreement is in force or declaring that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force.
In the circumstances described in paragraph 2, the Board shall make an order doing the following, unless the Board considers it inappropriate to do so,
i. 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
ii. declaring that the proposed project agreement, as amended, is in force.
In the circumstances described in paragraph 2, if the Board considers it inappropriate to make an order under paragraph 3, the Board may make an order declaring that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force.
The proponent submits “that to make any revisions to the proposed Project Agreement is purely discretionary, and the Board need not make any revisions if it considers it inappropriate for it to do so.” The proponent goes on to suggest that even if the Board found that there was a disproportionate impact on the applicant’s members, it would not be appropriate to amend the proposed project agreement. It points out that, in addition to the applicant, employees represented by four other bargaining agents also had their regular work week increased from 36 to 40 hours, and under their ICI provincial agreements, double time was payable for all hours worked in excess of 36 hours a week. The proponent pointed out that two of those five bargaining agents (Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 539 (“Local 539”) and Local 95) approved the proposed project agreement, while the applicant and the Millwrights disapproved it and Local 663 did not provide a response. If the Board were to accede to the applicant’s request, it would result in employees represented by 4 of the 5 bargaining agents who had their normal work week increased without any additional compensation under the proposed project agreement working under the proposed project agreement as drafted. Only the applicant’s members would have a different work week or receive additional compensation for the change in their work week. That, submits the proponent, would be an absurd result.
We note in that regard that all of the bargaining agents affected by the proposed project agreement had notice of this application and elected not to participate in the challenge made by the applicant.
In addition, the proponent argues that the terms and conditions of the proposed project agreement are identical to the terms and conditions of the project agreement that is already in force in the Sarnia area. To change the proposed project agreement will have a discriminatory impact on members of the applicant who are already working under an existing project agreement. To accede to the applicant’s request would result in three different wage rates or hours of work for the applicant’s members working on industrial projects in the same Board area (two different project agreements and the ICI provincial agreement). Thus the proponent argues the Board should consider it inappropriate to make an order amending the proposed project agreement under section 163.1(9)3, exercise its discretion under section 163.1(9)4 to refuse to make an order declaring that the proposed project agreement shall not come into force and make an order under section 163.1(1) declaring that the proposed project agreement is in force.
In our opinion, section 163.1 provides some amelioration of the adverse effect a proposed project agreement may have on employees represented by a bargaining agent that opposes a project agreement. It does this by requiring more than 60% of the bargaining agents affected by the proposed project agreement approve it, by allowing the bargaining agents who disapproved the agreement to challenge it and obtain a remedy that would moderate to some extent the reduction of total wages and benefits established by the project agreement in relation to the employees they represent and by giving the Board the overriding authority to declare that the project agreement shall not come into force in appropriate circumstances.
In this case, we need not determine whether the Board has the discretion to refuse to amend the proposed project agreement and declare it in force even where the conditions described in section 163.1(9)2 have been met by the applicant. We do not consider it inappropriate to amend the proposed project agreement as we are of the view that merely changing the affected employees’ hourly rate can achieve the result contemplated by section 163.1(9)3 without affecting the substance of the proposed project agreement.
The Board’s approach to providing a remedy under section 163.1(9)3 when the conditions in section 163.1(9)2 have been established was set out in Sarnia Construction Association, supra at page 894 where the Board stated:
Section 163.1(9)3 contemplates, in my view, a “tinkering” with the agreement in as least a disruptive fashion as possible so as to bring the reductions in total wages and benefits in line with the largest reduction applicable to the employees represented by the bargaining agent that approved the agreement.
Section 163.1(9)3 specifically directs the Board to amend the proposed project agreement to ensure that the total wage reduction of the affected employees is not greater than the wage reduction applicable, in this case, to the employees represented by Local 95. Where the reduction in wages and benefits can be ameliorated by merely changing the wage rate of the affected employees without changing any other term of the proposed project agreement, then we are of the view that the amendment should be made and the proposed project agreement, as amended, should be declared in force. If the result contemplated by section 163.1(9)3 can be achieved in several different ways (i.e., in this case with a change in the affected employees’ hourly rate or a change to the normal work week), the option that will have the least impact on all of the other parties who would be bound by the proposed project agreement should be selected.
We reject the applicant’s request to have the standard work week provision in the proposed project agreement eliminated. The Board in Sarnia Construction Association, supra indicated that the Act did not permit the Board to amend the hours of work provisions of the proposed project agreement or substantially revise it in some other ways. That indication by the Board was not necessary to the result in that case, and we need not decide in this case the extent, if any, to which the Board can amend provisions of proposed project agreement other than the wage schedule to achieve the result mandated by section 163.1(9)3. Even if we had the authority under the Act to do so, we would not change the hours of work provisions of the proposed project agreement in this case. In our view, a standard work week for all employees who work on a project is one of the benefits provided by a project agreement to its proponent. Eliminating the standardized work week, as the applicant suggested, would have an impact on employees represented by several other bargaining agents, and changing the standard work week for just the employees represented by the applicant might give rise to other scheduling or overtime issues.
Section 10(a) of the proposed project agreement provides:
The parties agree to the following standard terms and conditions for employment at the Projects:
(a) Base Wage Rates
All employees working under the terms of this Project Agreement shall be paid 95% of the prevailing base hourly wage rates set forth in the applicable Provincial Agreements.
In our view it is necessary to amend section 10(a) to exempt employees represented by the applicant from that provision and to add a new section to provide that employees represented by the applicant shall be paid more than 95% of the prevailing base rate under the applicant’s ICI provincial agreement.
The applicant submitted that under its ICI provincial agreement, the employees it represents would earn $1741.08 (inclusive of benefits) for working 40 hours in a week, while under the proposed project agreement those employees would earn $1513.81 (inclusive of benefits) for that same work week. In order to achieve the same reduction applicable to employees represented by Local 95 rather than the current reduction applicable under the proposed project agreement to the employees represented by the applicant, we have calculated that those employees would have to be paid $1585.60 (inclusive of benefits) for a 40 hour work week or $71.79 a week more than they would be paid under the proposed project agreement.
The Board undertook the following mathematical steps in order to determine the amount of the reduction created by the proposed project agreement, the weekly total wages and benefits, and the appropriate hourly rate that would result in employees represented by the applicant having the same reduction under the proposed project agreement as the employees represented by Local 95 thereby eliminating the disproportionate reduction:
a) Where A is the total amount paid for a 40 hour work week under the ICI provincial agreement and B is the total amount paid for a 40 hour work week under the proposed project agreement, the reduction rate “R” is determined by the following formula:
Local 95 (A¹ − B¹) ÷ A¹ = R¹
Applicant (Aª − Bª) ÷ Aª = Rª
b) As the applicant had a higher R value than Local 95, the Board was required to reduce the applicant’s R value to the R value of Local 95. That next step required the Board to determine the amount that the members of the applicant would have to earn per week under the proposed project agreement (WR) so that their proportionate reduction in total wages and benefit (R value) was not greater that the R value of Local 95. We used the following formula for that next calculation:
Aª − (Aª × R¹) = WR
c) The final step required the Board to calculate the correct hourly rate (HR) for the applicant, which it did by using the following formula:
[(WR÷ 40) − $5.07] × 0.9090909 =HR
The Board used 40 in the above formula because the work week is a 40 hour week and subtracted $5.07 from that amount as that is a constant amount added to the hourly rate for benefit payments. As vacation pay and holiday pay is paid at 10% of the hourly rate, the penultimate amount had to be reduced by that factor to come to the correct hourly rate.
The Board used the figures provided by the applicant that were based upon the applicant’s ICI Provincial Agreement that expired on April 30, 2001. If there was a change in the amount of the benefit payments or wage rates under the current ICI provincial agreements by which the applicant and Local 95 are bound, those changes, had either the applicant or proponent brought them to our attention, might have affected the correct hourly rate. Nevertheless, the Board was required to make its determination based on the submissions of the parties and we have done so.
The applicant has submitted that under the current ICI provincial agreement, employees represented by the applicant have a base hourly rate of $31.36, and receive 10% of their base rate for holiday and vacation pay and an additional $5.07 for benefits, resulting in a total wage and benefit package of $39.57 an hour. When those employees are paid double time for hours worked in excess of 36 hours a week under their ICI provincial agreement, double time is paid based on the total wage and benefit package, not just the base rate. In order to have the employees represented by the applicant paid $1585.60 (inclusive of benefits) a week for a 40-hour work week under the proposed project agreement, we have determined that the base hourly rate for those employees under the ICI provincial agreement must be increased to $31.43. At an hourly rate of $31.43, the employees represented by the applicant would, according to the collective agreement information filed by the applicant and not contradicted by the proponent, be paid 10% for holiday and vacation pay ($3.14) and $5.07 for benefits for a total hourly package $39.64 or $1585.60 for a 40 hour week. In order to raise the current base rate in the ICI provincial agreement from $31.36 per hour to $31.43 per hour (an increase of $0.07) in the proposed project agreement, the base rate found in the ICI provincial agreement for employees represented by the applicant must be increased by 0.22%.
Therefore the Board, pursuant to section 163.1(9)3(i) of the Act, orders that the proposed project agreement is amended by inserting the words “save and except employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530” between the words “employees” and “working” in section 10(a) of the proposed project agreement, by renumbering the amended section 10(a) as 10(a)(i) and by inserting the following as a new section 10(a)(ii) immediately after section 10(a)(i) of the proposed project agreement:
(ii) All employees represented the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 working under the terms of this Project Agreement shall be paid 100.22% of the prevailing base hourly wage rate set forth in the Provincial Agreement between The Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers & the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario.
Section 10(a) of the amended proposed project agreement shall now provide:
The parties agree to the following standard terms and conditions for employment at the Projects:
(a) Base Wage Rates
(i) All employees save and except employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 working under the terms of this Project Agreement shall be paid 95% of the prevailing base hourly wage rates set forth in the applicable Provincial Agreements.
(ii) All employees represented the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 working under the terms of this Project Agreement shall be paid 100.22% of the prevailing base hourly wage rate set forth in the Provincial Agreement between The Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers & the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario.
- The Board, pursuant to section 163.1(9)3(ii) of the Act, makes an order declaring that the proposed project agreement as amended by the Board’s order in paragraph 26 above is in force.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board