CHC-AHC

BCLRB No. B39/2008 (leave for Reconsideration of BCLRB No. B276/2007)

2008-04-03T14:37:00.000-07:00

II. ANALYSIS AND DECISION

4 An application under Section 141 must meet the Board's established test before leave for reconsideration will be granted. An applicant must demonstrate "a good arguable case of sufficient merit that it may succeed on one of the established grounds for reconsideration": Brinco Coal Mining Corporation, BCLRB No. B74/93 (Leave for Reconsideration of BCLRB No. B6/93), CLRBR (2nd) 44 ("Brinco"). A prime facie case will not suffice; an applicant mus traise a serious question as to the correctness of the Original Decision.

5 We have reviewed the Original Decision, AHC's application for leave and reconsideration, and the parties' submissions in respect of both. We are not persuaded that the Original Decision is in error, or that it is inconsistent with Code principles. In our view, the conclusions drawn and declarations made in the Original Decision are consistent with Code principles and appropriate in the circumstances, for the reasons given in the Original Decision.

6 To the extent that further arguments are raised in the reconsideration application and submissions of AHC and CHC before us, we find they are answered by CMAW's arguments on reconsideration. In particular, we accept CMAW's argument that BCPC, not its individual locals, was the "affiliated union" for carpenters within AHC, and that therefore when CMAW replaced BCPC within AHC as a result of B235/2007, CMAW became the affiliated union for carpenters and took on all the rights and responsibilities of that position, including clearance and dispatch rights.

7 Although AHC's application for leave and reconsideration makes a bare assertion that the Original Decision is contrary to principles of natural justice and values expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it fails to provide any submissions in regard to those two assertions. In our view, therefore, it cannot be said that either of those issues are properly raised in AHC's application.

8 AHC's application raises inconsistency with Code principles as its ground for review, and provides submissions in that regard. However, for the reasons given, we find those submissions, and the supporting submissions of CHC, do not raise a serious question as to the correctness of the Original Decision. Accordingly, leave is denied and the application is dismissed.

LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

BRENT MULLIN

CHAIR

ALLISON MATACHESKIE

VICE-CHAIR

BEVERLY BURNS

VICE-CHAIR

======

this decision in pdf format dated April 3 is available here: http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/NUM2008.HTM

BC LRB decisons in pdf format

2008-01-03T07:06:00.000-08:00

LRB of BC Numerical Index 2007

B276/2007
December 20, 2007
http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B276$2007.pdf

Columbia Hydro Constructors Ltd. -and- Allied Hydro Council of British Columbia -and- Construction, Maintenance and Allied Workers Bargaining Council and Construction, Maintenance and Allied Workers Bargaining Council, Local Unit Number 2300 -and- Peter Kiewit Sons Co.

----------

B277/2007
December 21, 2007
http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B277$2007.pdf

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America -and- British Columbia Provincial Council of Carpenters -and- Construction, Maintenance and Allied Workers Bargaining Council of British Columbia

BCLRB No. B276/2007 CONCLUSION

2007-12-21T19:38:00.000-08:00

BCLRB No. B276/2007
CONCLUSION

AHC remains the exclusive bargaining agent on behalf of the poly-party. CHC is right to comply with its directions regarding appropriate affiliate unions. However, AHC maintains its exclusive bargaining rights on behalf of its constituents, not the individual members or craft locals that comprise its constituents. BCPC was a constituent of the AHC. CMAW Local 2300 is a constituent of AHC. The certification provides CMAW Local 2300 with membership in the AHC and the Collective Agreement entitles CMAW Local 2300 to exercise all of the dispatch and clearance responsibilities as the appropriate affiliate union of the AHC. There are no other affiliate carpenter unions pertaining to the craft in the AHC at present. Accordingly, I declare that AHC must direct CHC to contact CMAW Local 2300 with respect to the dispatch of carpenters to work on the Revelstoke 5 Project.

LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Ritu N. Mahil
VICE-CHAIR

CMAW Local 2300 wins LRB decision for Hydro dispatch

2007-12-20T18:39:00.000-08:00

CMAW Carpenters Good, UBCJA Carpenters Bad, according to Peter Kiewit

2007-12-04T21:43:00.001-08:00

One of the world’s largest construction companies has complained that they can’t get qualified carpenters dispatched from the UBCJA local to work on the Revelstoke Dam.

Peter Kiewit Sons has written to the Labour Relations Board saying they know that the qualified carpenters they need are members of CMAW. Peter Kiewit’s lawyers have asked for intervenor status at a board hearing set for Dec. 11 in an attempt to get the qualified CMAW carpenters they need.

Terry's pictures from the East entrance

2007-11-24T10:26:00.000-08:00

CMAW wins right to sit on Allied Hydro Council

2007-11-22T22:20:00.000-08:00

UBCJA appears not to notice - CMAW website news

Good Morning Revelstoke Dam!

2007-11-16T10:51:00.001-08:00

A Sparky crosses... then uncrosses

2007-11-16T10:32:00.000-08:00

A few with UBCJA dispatches eventually leave

2007-11-16T10:02:00.000-08:00

Signs of the times

2007-11-15T09:18:00.000-08:00

Why did LeAnn cross the road?

2007-11-15T09:06:00.000-08:00

Why did LeAnn try (half-heartedly) to cross the line?

CHC-AHC: putting the DIS in dispatch!

2007-11-15T08:48:00.000-08:00

Welcome to CHC-AHC, a meeting place to discuss the disarray and ineptitude of the decisions taken on behalf of the union workers in the Columbia Valley hydro projects. This is an unbiased site, just like the AHC board: write on brothers and sisters.

LRB Decison 16 October 2007

2007-11-15T08:30:00.000-08:00

"CMAW replace(s) BCPC in the AHC Certification"

BRITISH COLUMBIA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD excerpt:
read the full decision as a PDF download
DECISION OF THE BOARD
BCLRB No. B235/2007
(Leave for Reconsideration of BCLRB No. B44/2007)

- 17 - BCLRB No. B235/2007
79 Those opposed to the application argue, in essence, that a difference of opinion and approach concerning organization and representation of employees in the unionized construction sector between CMAW and other members of the AHC has led to such “animosity” between CMAW and those members that “forcing” CMAW on the AHC risks destabilizing the poly-party, leading to industrial instability, contrary to Code principles. Those who espouse this argument admit that it is speculative, but argue that the Board should not risk, in effect, “upsetting the apple cart” that is the AHC.

80 We are sensitive to the risk of upsetting the proper and effective functioning of the AHC. We appreciate the point that such voluntarily formed poly-party entities are an important part of the labour relations landscape, particularly in the construction industry. In that context they provide a mechanism by which craft unions could deal with some of the challenges facing the sector. However, at the same time we find the risk of industrial instability said to flow from allowing the addition of CMAW to be speculative and overblown. CMAW has clearly stated that it recognizes it would be bound by the AHC constitution and bargaining structure if its application to replace BCPC is allowed.

81 We also note that CMAW actively participated with the Bargaining Council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions (“BCBCBTU”) in the last round of collective bargaining with the Construction Labour Relations Association (“CLR”) through which an industry-wide settlement was reached. BCBCBTU is a council of 15 craft unions (many of which are also members of AHC) created under Section 41 of the Code to bargain on a multi-trade, multi-employer basis. CLR represents construction contractors who have a collective bargaining relationship with one or more of those building trades unions.

82 While the other constituent members of AHC may be unhappy to have CMAW as a member of AHC, both the context of the building trades sector as well as the fact that employees have voted to have CMAW replace BCPC as a means of dealing with challenges facing the sector must be recognized: see paras. 72-77 above. In these circumstances, we are not persuaded that the differences of opinion and approach between CMAW and other members of AHC are valid reasons to bar CMAW from replacing BCPC in the AHC. Constituent members of a poly-party union are not required to like one another or to agree with one another’s views on all topics; they are required to work together in a way which is ultimately not self-defeating but rather is for the greater good – that is for the good of the employees which they collectively represent.

83 In the circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to deny CMAW and BCPC’s application. The application reflects the wishes of employees who voted to have CMAW represent BCPC as their bargaining agent in order to deal with the challenges in the construction industry. In order not to unduly restrict the option CMAW
- 18 - BCLRB No. B235/2007
represents, we grant the application to have CMAW replace BCPC in the AHC Certification.