|
Infrastructure - Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA). United Association of Canada v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059
In United Association of Canada v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a labour JR, this brought against "two decisions (the “Decisions”) of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) dealing with a jurisdictional dispute between two unions. The Board determined that the installation of a new water-based fire suppression system which had been assigned to UA by Troy Life & Fire Safety Ltd. (“Troy”) was within the jurisdiction of the Labourers (“LIUNA”).".
Here the court considers a 'jurisdictional dispute' between unions [LRA 99 - 'Jurisdictional, etc., disputes'], and whether the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 (BOSTA) is relevant to such a determination:[2] UA supported by Troy argue that the Board failed to consider the requirements under the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 28 (“BOSTA”) which they argue created exclusive jurisdiction in favour of UA’s members. They submit that based on the failure of the Board to justify its conclusion that this legislation is irrelevant, the Decisions were unreasonable. UA and Troy ask that the Decisions be quashed and that the matter be remitted to a different Vice-Chair of the Board.
[3] The Board found that BOSTA’s purpose is to protect the public by determining the skill set necessary for work performed by regulated trades, not to determine trade jurisdiction or to override the traditional factors considered in a jurisdictional dispute which it found favoured LIUNA with respect to the disputed installation work.
[4] LIUNA argues that the Board’s decisions were reasonable and the application should be dismissed.
[5] For the reasons set out below, I would dismiss the application.
Background
[6] LIUNA filed a jurisdictional dispute under s. 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A against UA representing plumbers and pipefitters. Section 99 of the Labour Relations Act does not set out any factors or criteria which the Board must (or might) consider in determining a jurisdictional dispute. Section 99(5) states:99(5) The Board may make any interim or final order it considers appropriate after consulting with the parties. ....
[10] The Board assessed the jurisdiction of each trade to perform the disputed work and made the following findings based on the six well-known factors established over decades of Board jurisprudence applied in work assignment disputes:a. collective agreements – the Board found the work could fall within the scope of both unions’ collective agreements;
b. trade agreements between competing unions – the Board found there are no relevant trade agreements;
c. employer practice – the Board found there was not enough relevant practice evidence to make a determination on this factor;
d. area practice – LIUNA was able to present significantly more historical evidence of their members performing this type of work within the geographic area, and therefore the Board found this factor to heavily favour the Labourers;
e. safety skills and training – the Board found both parties demonstrated that their members have the skills and training required to perform the work safely; and
f. economy and efficiency – the Board found neither trade demonstrated that it would be more economical or efficient for the work to be performed by its members. ....
[22] Section 99 of the Labour Relations Act assigns a broad jurisdiction to the Board in the resolution of jurisdictional disputes. The Board is empowered to make “any interim or final order it considers appropriate”. Section 99 reflects a legislative policy that disputes over work jurisdiction should be resolved by a decision of the Board, rather than by economic conflict.
....
[31] The Board has consistently found that qualification and apprenticeship legislation is safety legislation which is not intended to divide work jurisdiction between competing construction trade unions. At para. 39 of the Reconsideration Decision the Board stated:39. It bears repeating that one of the purposes of BOSTA, like the legislation that preceded it, is to protect the public by determining the skill set necessary for work performed by compulsory regulated trades. Its purpose is not to determine trade jurisdiction between competing construction trade unions: see E.S. Fox Limited, [1989] OLRB Rep. July 738 and Bruce Power LP, 2006 CanLII 33923 (ON LRB). Despite the urging of the UA and Troy to the contrary, the Board does not agree that BOSTA operates to override the traditional factors which the Board considers in a work assignment dispute. ....
[35] The Board did not fail to explain why it declined to treat BOSTA as relevant to the jurisdictional dispute. It found that BOSTA’s purpose is to protect the public by identifying the skills required for compulsory regulated trades. It does not displace the Board’s established factors for resolving work‑assignment disputes between unions.
|
