Masonry Magazine July 1971 Page. 25
MCAA
information
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
File No. 321-71-JD
Between:
Abe Dick Masonry Limited,
- and
Complainant,
Labourers International Union of North
America Local 493 and United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America
Local 2486,
Respondents.
BEFORE: J. H. Brown, Q.C., Alternate Chairman, and
Board Members E. Boyer and F. W. Murray.
APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING: R. D. Perkins
and Abe Dick for the complainant; Raymond Koskie
and M. Ross for Labourers Local 493; no one for
Carpenters Local 2486.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
This is a complaint made under section 66 of The
Labour Relations Act.
The work in dispute between the respondent trade
unions is the erection of tubular metal scaffolding ex-
tending to a height in excess of 14 feet, which scaffold-
ing is being used on The Canadian College Education
Centre construction project at North Bay.
The president of the complainant and the com-
plainant's superintendent on the project testified that it
had been the invariable practice of the complainant for
more than twenty years to assign the work in dispute to
labourers. Moreover, according to their testimony, this
assignment was made not only on projects in the North
Bay area, but also throughout all of Ontario. Repre-
sentatives of three masonry contractors operating out of
Sudbury testified as well that it was their consistent prac-
tice to assign the work in dispute to labourers. The
representatives of two of the companies stated that on a
couple of isolated occasions an assignment of the work
in dispute had been made to carpenters but only on the
insistence of the general contractor on the project.
The above witnesses further testified that it was
more economical to use labourers, not only because the
wage rate for labourers was lower than for carpenters,
but also because they were able to fully utilize labourers
in scheduling work. More specifically, when a brick wall
is being built, it is the function of labourers to tend the
bricklayers. This means, according to the witnesses, that
when the labourers are not erecting tubular scaffolding
they have such duties to perform as preparing mortar
and lifting bricks up to the top of the scaffold for use by
the bricklayers. In other words, the work can always be
scheduled so as to completely utilize the time of the
labourers. According to the contractors, the work of
erecting scaffolding, on average, might occupy two hours
a day. The evidence is that if carpenters were assigned
to the work, most often there would be no other work
for them to do when they were not erecting scaffolding.
Notwithstanding this fact, the testimony is that the ma-
sonry contractors would be required to pay the carpen-
ters for additional time during which they had no work
to do.
The further evidence of the contractors who testi-
fied is that no skills are required to erect tubular metal
scaffolding and certainly no skills associated with car-
penters. According to the evidence of the contractors,
the erection is done manually and no tools are needed.
None of the witnesses could recall a single instance
when the scaffolding was not erected by the labourers in
a safe manner or when the erected scaffolding was not
safe for use by the bricklayers. The contractors' testi-
mony is that they were completely satisfied with the
erection of the scaffolding as done by the labourers and
also they expressed a preference to use labourers over
carpenters to do the disputed work.
We would mention here that although the re-
spondent carpenters union was represented at the hear-
ing with respect to the interim order, no one appeared
on behalf of the carpenters at the hearing on the merits
of the dispute. Therefore, no evidence was called in
support of the claim made by the carpenters to the work
in dispute.