January 26, 2022  
Directed to: Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 - Stacy Tulp, Construction and  
General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 - Shaun Clemens, United Association of  
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the  
United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 - Lorin Bates / Joel Reinbold,  
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955 - Don Mills,  
Blair Chahley Klassen Lawyers - J. Robert. W. Blair / Cherie Klassen, STEEL  
RIVER SICIM PIPELINE Ltd. - Nick Pentelichuk, Canadian Iron, Steel and  
Industrial Workers' Union Local #2 - John Cousins / Rick Jamerson,  
NUGENT Law Office - Jacob Axelrod, Blakely and Dushenski - Robert R.  
Blakely, Q.C., Miller Thomson LLP - Stephen M. Torscher / Patrick D.  
Fitzpatrick, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP - Richard F. Steele / James  
Jeffrey  
OUR VISION…  
The fair and equitable  
application of Alberta’s  
collective bargaining laws.  
RE:  
An application for certification as bargaining agent brought by  
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955 affecting  
STEEL RIVER SICIM PIPELINE Ltd. and Canadian Iron, Steel and  
Industrial Workers' Union Local #2 - Board File No. CR-05743  
OUR MISSION…  
RE:  
An application for certification as bargaining agent brought by  
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the  
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and  
Canada, Local Union No. 488 affecting STEEL RIVER SICIM  
PIPELINE Ltd. and Canadian Iron, Steel and Industrial Workers'  
Union Local #2 - Board File No. CR-05744  
To administer, interpret  
and enforce Alberta’s  
collective bargaining laws  
in an impartial,  
knowledgeable, efficient,  
timely and consistent way.  
RE:  
RE:  
[1]  
An application for certification as bargaining agent brought by  
Construction and General Workers' Union, Local No. 92 affecting  
STEEL RIVER SICIM PIPELINE Ltd. and Canadian Iron, Steel and  
Industrial Workers' Union Local #2 - Board File No. CR-05745  
501, 10808 - 99 Avenue  
Edmonton, Alberta  
T5K 0G5  
Tel: 780-422-5926  
Fax: 780-422-0970  
An application for certification as bargaining agent brought by  
General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 affecting STEEL RIVER  
SICIM PIPELINE Ltd. and Canadian Iron, Steel and Industrial  
Workers’ Union Local #2 – Board File No. CR-05746  
308, 1212 - 31 Avenue NE  
Calgary, Alberta  
T2E 7S8  
This decision addresses objections filed in response to certification  
applications brought by four building trade unions affecting Steel River SICIM  
Pipeline Ltd. (the “Employer”).  
Tel: 403-297-4334  
Fax: 403-297-5884  
[2]  
On January 8, 2021, the International Union of Operating Engineers,  
Local Union No. 955 (the “OEs”) applied under the Labour Relations Code  
(“Code”) to be the certified bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the  
Employer comprising: Pipeline Construction Operating Engineers (CR-05743).  
E-mail:  
Website:  
www.alrb.gov.ab.ca  
[3]  
On the same day, January 8th, the United Association of Journeymen  
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States  
and Canada, Local Union No. 488 (the “Pipefitters”) applied to be the certified  
bargaining agent for a unit described as: Pipeline Construction Pipefitters (CR-  
05744).  
Classification: Public  
2
[4]  
On January 11, 2021, the Construction and General Workers’ Union, Local No. 92 (the  
“Labourers”) filed its certification application, seeking a unit comprising: Pipeline Construction  
Labourers (CR-05745).  
[5]  
On January 12, 2021, the General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 (the “Teamsters”)  
applied for a unit of: Pipeline Construction Teamsters (CR-05746).  
[6]  
The applications are supported by membership evidence. The Canadian Iron, Steel and  
Industrial Workers’ Union Local #2 (“CISIWU”) is also affected by these applications, as the  
Employer has voluntarily recognized CISIWU as the bargaining agent of the affected employees  
pursuant to a collective agreement with a term of November 13, 2020 to November 13, 2025  
(the “CISIWU Agreement”).  
[7]  
The certification applications were investigated and reported on by a Board Officer, who  
found each of the applications, by operation of the CISIWU Agreement, untimely as they did not  
fall within one of the open periods described in section 37(2)(e) of the Code. The Officer also  
found each application lacked the 40% support required under section 33(a) of the Code. As a  
result, the Officer recommended the applications be dismissed.  
[8]  
The OEs, Pipefitters, Labourers, and Teamsters (collectively, the “Applicants”) each  
objected to the finding that their application was untimely, arguing CISIWU has no legal  
existence, or is not a trade union, or the CISIWU Agreement is otherwise void and does not  
form the basis of a valid voluntary recognition.  
[9]  
Each of the Applicants also filed numerous objections regarding the “ins and outs” on the  
employee lists in the Board Officer’s reports. The basis for these objections was the Applicants’  
shared view that the Board Officer’s reports were unreliable. The Applicants asserted the  
information the Employer provided to the Board Officer was inaccurate, the trade jurisdictional  
lines in the pipeline construction sector had not been properly observed, and primary source  
information that is typically relied on by an Officer when investigating a certification application  
had not been obtained, thus calling into question the validity of the placement of many of the  
subject employees.  
[10]  
In response to those concerns regarding the ins and outs, and those related to CISIWU  
and the CISIWU Agreement, the Applicants made sizable production requests of the Employer  
and CISIWU (the “Respondents”).  
[11]  
On February 10, 2021, the Board ordered production of payroll and other related  
employment records relevant to the ins and outs.  
[12]  
On February 12, 2021, the Board issued a decision finding the circumstances of this  
case supported bifurcating the hearing into the certification applications to first address the “ins  
and outs” issues (see: Operating Engineers, Local 955, PPF Local 488, Labourers’ Local No.  
92, General Teamsters Local 362 v. Steel River SICIM Pipeline Ltd. and CISIW Local #2, [2021]  
Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-012).  
[13]  
By early March 2021, some of the Applicants had filed supplementary objections, flowing  
from a review of the production that had been provided by the Employer and ordered by the  
Board.  
Classification: Public  
3
[14]  
A hearing into the “ins and outs” objections took place before a panel of the Board  
(Smith, Brown, Neumann) over eight days commencing in March 2021 and concluding in June  
2021. Twenty-five exhibits were entered into evidence (comprising thousands of pages of  
documents) and five witnesses testified: Nick Pentelichuk, a Director and President of the  
Employer; Patrick Campbell, Canadian Pipeline Director for the International Union of Operating  
Engineers; Heiko Wiechern, Western Canada and National Pipeline representative with the  
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of  
the United States and Canada; Hugh Walker, an organizer for the Labourers; and Ian Murphy, a  
Teamster member and employee with the Employer in the period relevant to these applications.  
At the close of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.  
The Board Officer’s Reports  
[15]  
The parties dispute the impact and value of the Board Officer’s reports. The Applicants  
contend the reports are unreliable as they were assembled using inadequate, inaccurate  
information and reflected a misapprehension of the unionized pipeline construction sector. In  
contrast, the Respondents argue the reports should essentially be treated as unimpeachable,  
unless their findings can be rebutted by plausible first-hand evidence.  
[16]  
Rule 26.1 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure makes clear “… the Board may consider  
the officer’s report to be evidence of the facts found therein and may dispose of the matter on  
the basis of such evidence unless contrary evidence is adduced”. Nothing in the cases referred  
to by the Respondents (including City of Edmonton v. ATU, Local 569, [1980] Alta. L.R.B.R. 80-  
061; CWGU, Local No. 92 v. Golderado Contracting Corp. & CLAC Local 63, [2021] Alta.  
L.R.B.R. LD-045 (“Golderado”); CLAC Local 56 v. Care Calgary Inc., [2020] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-  
004; CAW-Canada Local 4050 v. E-Can Oilfield Services L.P., [2021] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-032)  
suggests a Board Officer’s report maintains any special status in the face of contrary evidence.  
[17]  
Nevertheless, the Employer relies on CUPE Local 38 v. City of Calgary, [2003] Alta.  
L.R.B.R. LD-082 (“City of Calgary”) in arguing direct evidence is required to overturn an Officer’s  
findings. With one exception, says the Employer, the Applicants have not called employees to  
speak to what they were doing on or around the dates of application, and the Board should draw  
a negative inference from their failure to adduce such evidence. We do not agree. The City of  
Calgary case concerned a determination application under section 12 of the Code. In  
applications of that nature, the Board is generally dubious of evidence not informed by first-hand  
observations of what the relevant employees are doing in their jobs. In contrast, when  
addressing “ins and outs” in the context of a certification proceeding, the Board’s role is to  
assess, often in a rough-and-ready fashion, all of the evidence that is put before it to determine  
whether the employees in question are inor outof the proposed bargaining unit. While the  
Board will typically accept a Board Officer’s findings when there is no, or inadequate, evidence  
to the contrary, the Board also has the discretion, in the face of evidence that cannot be  
resisted, to come to a different conclusion from the Officer. It is not a question of what is the  
best or only evidence that the Board will consider before overturning an Officer’s findings, it is  
an exercise in analyzing the totality of the evidence before it to determine what is acceptable or  
unacceptable about the Board Officer’s conclusions.  
[18]  
The Board’s Information Bulletin #8 (“IB #8”) describes what typically occurs during an  
Officer’s investigation of a certification application. Obviously, the quality, thoroughness, and  
accuracy of the information the Officer receives during their investigation directly impacts the  
reliability of the report that follows, including who should be included in the unit for the purposes  
Classification: Public  
4
of assessing the level of support for the application and who is eligible to vote according to the  
Board’s Voting Rules.  
[19]  
When investigating a certification application, the Board Officer will typically seek from  
the Employer such things as “employment documents including but not limited to job  
descriptions, contracts, cost codes, hire on sheets and payroll information” (IB #8, page 6). For  
these applications, the Board Officer did not have those documents. What she did have were  
excel spreadsheets completed by the Employer, one of which contained a list of the employees’  
contact information, classification, work location, full-time/part-time/casual status, whether they  
were at work on the application date and if not any related absence/attendance information, if  
they had any managerial functions, whether they were dependent contractors, what crew they  
worked on, and the name of their supervisor. The evidence indicated Mr Pentelichuk instructed  
a team (comprised of a senior Vice-President, the Human Resources Manager, and the  
applicable project managers) to complete this spreadsheet based on the payroll information on  
hand. A second spreadsheet acquired by the Board Officer listed a description of the work  
duties performed by each employee’s crew on the day of the application relevant to that  
employee’s trade unit placement. Other information from the Employer included employee and  
supervisor job descriptions, which Mr Pentelichuk testified were drawn from other sources as  
the Employer did not have its own job descriptions. The Employer also provided the Board  
Officer with its view of the trade-specific nature of some of its work crews.  
[20]  
With this information in hand, the Board Officer assembled her reports on the  
applications. It could not have been easy. She was working under tight timelines on complex,  
interconnected applications with large numbers of employees that had to be placed in trade-  
based units that have some challenging and nuanced jurisdictional borders. Further  
complicating her work was the inexperience of the Employer regarding the unionized pipeline  
construction sector. Under these daunting circumstances, she completed her reports and made  
her recommendations for each application, without unfortunately having the benefit of the  
employment records referred to in IB #8.  
[21]  
Dubious of those outcomes in the reports, such as the incongruous numbers of  
individuals that had been placed in the units and some of the individual inclusions or exclusions,  
the Applicants made their production of documents requests, including for the missing  
employment information, and the Board granted disclosure of a good portion of those materials  
relating to the objected-to employees. The Applicants now rely on that information in support of  
the filed objections, they ask the Board to carefully examine it, and if it is convincing enough to  
warrant alternative placements for the employees objected to, direct that those changes be  
made and recalculate each trade union’s support. From the examination that took place of Mr  
Pentelichuk, which will be commented on throughout our analysis of the evidence, it is clear  
there was a solid basis for a number of the Applicants’ objections.  
Additional Comments  
[22]  
There are a number of challenging features to this case. First, it concerns certification  
applications in the construction pipeline sector which are infrequent occurrences at the Board.  
Indeed, a Board Officer could work for years at the Board without having a pipeline certification  
application land on their desk for investigation. While there are well-established jurisdictional  
trade lines between the Applicants in this sector, driven primarily by a national bargaining  
scheme and decades of working under registration agreements, referred to as Mainline Pipeline  
Agreements, there are also some fine and nuanced lines, especially between the work of the  
Teamsters and the OEs.  
Classification: Public  
5
[23]  
This situation was further complicated by the fact that Mr Pentelichuk, the Employer’s  
spokesperson for information transmitted to the Board Officer during her investigation, and the  
principal witness in these proceedings, freely admitted he was largely unfamiliar with how the  
building trades organized themselves in the pipeline construction sector. This of course had a  
large bearing on the reliability of the reports, because the Board Officer had neither the  
employment records nor the time to properly examine the accuracy of the Employer’s  
recommendations on where the employees should be placed.  
[24]  
Beyond the evidence extracted from Mr Pentelichuk over four days of examination, the  
Employer did not seek to call other evidence, whether from employees or their supervisors. It  
elected to rely on Mr Pentelichuk’s evidence and the documents entered as exhibits, although it  
made very few attempts to argue a different or alternative interpretation of that evidence, relying  
instead on its misplaced notion that only direct evidence could overturn the Board Officer’s  
findings.  
[25]  
The only employee witness called by the Applicants was Ian Murphy, and his evidence  
was helpful in clarifying his situation. The Applicants contended there would have been no  
efficiencies to be gained in calling all the individual employees given the amount of time it would  
have taken up, the possibility the employees might struggle to remember what they were doing  
on any given work day, and in any event the best evidence was the foremen’s comments on the  
crew timesheets. However, it was our experience there were a few particularly close calls with  
respect to the objected-to employees, and it would have been beneficial to hear directly from  
those employees. It may have resulted in more hearing time, but we expect far less deliberation  
time for the Board as we endeavoured to make heads or tails of the copious amount of  
documents entered into evidence.  
[26]  
We did hear from Mr Campbell, Mr Wiechern, and Mr Walker, all very experienced union  
officials in the pipeline industry for their respective trades, and despite the Respondents’  
attempts to diminish the worth of their evidence, we found it helpful. At a minimum, their  
evidence regarding how the pipeline sector operates, how the pipeline construction process  
unfolds, and the jurisdictional lines amoung the four trades, confirmed for us that with few  
exceptions, the Board’s own Chapter 25(d), Pipeline Construction, in its Policy and Procedure  
Manual, remains a reasonably accurate summary of this field and one that our Board Officers  
may continue to rely on when investigating these types of applications.  
[27]  
In the end, the Board has been left in a situation similar to what the Board Officer found  
herself in, with imperfect evidence to weigh in making decisions as to where each of these  
objected-to employees should be placed. The difference of course is we have the employment  
records, and while they largely do not speak to what exactly an individual employee was doing  
on any given day, they provide in most cases a sufficient amount of information that enables the  
Board to ascertain, on a balance of probabilities, what constitutes a reasonable placement for  
each of these objected-to employees.  
The General Principles Followed in the Board’s Analysis  
[28]  
Despite the particular challenges of these applications, the principles we have  
endeavoured to follow are well established in the Board’s jurisprudence. In the recent  
Golderado decision, the Board stated at paragraphs 12 -13:  
Classification: Public  
6
The test used by the Board to determine whether an employee is included or  
excluded from a bargaining unit is the prime function test. Information Bulletin  
#22 describes the Board’s approach to the issue as follows:  
The Board frequently decides if an employee is a member of a specific  
bargaining unit. The Board does not make determinations about a  
classification or a position. There must be a person in the position. The  
Board determines whether a person is a member of a bargaining unit  
using the prime function test. This test evaluates the functions performed  
by the employee during a reasonable period of time surrounding the date  
of the application. See: Re: City of Edmonton Bargaining Units, [1993]  
L.R.B.R. 362.  
When determining which bargaining unit an employee may fall into, the  
Board considers:  
the unit description(s);  
the nature and organization of the employer’s business;  
the prime function of each employee: what functions does the  
employee perform? What skills does the employee use? What  
tools? What materials? Does the employee do the work or assist?  
What percentage of time this work involves out of the total duties?  
and  
job qualifications to the extent they help the Board decide what a  
person is doing.  
See: Brauns Construction Ltd. v. Labourers’ Local 92, [1992] Alta.  
L.R.B.R. 10.  
Other important principles when assessing prime function are:  
“Prime function goes beyond a percentage count of how much time a  
person spends doing one task or another. It refers as well to a person’s  
core function; the purpose of having them do their job, its raison d’etre”;  
Re: City of Edmonton Bargaining Units, [1993] Alta. L.R.B.R. 362 at 396;  
The Board pays little attention to job nomenclature, except insofar as it  
corroborates what an employee was actually doing: United Brotherhood  
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325 v. Lexon  
Industrial Inc., [1997] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-008 (“Lexon”) at page 2;  
The Board is not bound by scope clauses contained in relevant collective  
agreements, although the Board may take them into account if they help  
the Board appreciate industry practice and on what side of a jurisdictional  
line an employee may fall: Lexon at page 2.  
[29]  
Other helpful Board commentary relating to our task ahead includes the following from  
UBCJA, Local 2103 and Perma-Cast Concrete Contracting Ltd., Re, [2020] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-  
090. In that case it was the union who had filed objections concerning some ins and outs. At  
paragraph 9, the Board stated:  
The parties are agreed the onus of proof in displacing the Officer’s finding is on  
the Union; that the standard of proof is that of a balance of probabilities; and that  
Classification: Public  
7
the test the Board applies is to seek the “prime function” of one or a group of  
employees, the predominant task or group of tasks they perform on or around the  
date of the application.  
[30]  
As well, the Board’s comments from Triton Construction Services Inc. (Re), [1999] Alta.  
L.R.B.R. LD-026 provide useful guidance when addressing evidentiary challenges in  
construction trade units, in particular as they relate to uncertain prime function evidence. At  
paragraphs 9 -11, the Board stated:  
There was an argument whether such an employee has any “prime function” at  
all when he does not spend a majority of his time within one trade jurisdiction. I  
am persuaded by the argument that the Code does not contemplate that a non-  
managerial construction employee could fall outside all trade jurisdictions for  
purposes of a certification application. Such an employee must fall in one  
standard construction bargaining unit or another.  
In a case like this, I consider it appropriate to look at the disputed employees’  
duties over a longer time period than is normal in applying the “prime function  
test”. In doing so, it makes sense to assign the greatest weight to the  
employee’s pre-application duties in order to prevent employer gerrymandering  
of the voter list and to give the union a fair chance to assess in advance who  
might fall within the bargaining unit.  
If this approach does not point to a clear resolution, I believe it is appropriate to  
then apply the “prime function test” in a way that assigns an employee to the  
trade jurisdiction with which he has the most substantial connection in the period  
surrounding the application date, even if that trade did not claim a majority of the  
employee’s time. The Board may look to the predominant, i.e. the most  
significant, trade in the employee’s job duties in the relevant time, as well as any  
other facts that reinforce the employee’s connection to one trade or another  
during that time.  
(emphasis in the original)  
[31]  
With respect to the issue of whether an employee must be placed into one of the four  
trade based units applicable to pipeline construction certifications, the OEs and the Pipefitters  
argued the Board is under no obligation to do so, and if the evidence does not support their  
placement into one of those four units, they should be left on the sidelines. The OEs and  
Pipefitters point to the Board’s Information Bulletin #11, Bargaining Units for the Building  
Trades, at page 3, wherein the Board acknowledges that many trades are not listed for the  
pipeline sector, and if employees in such unlisted trades work in pipeline construction, the Board  
can grant certification for such additional trades, to argue the exercise the Board is being asked  
to engage in here with the ins and outs is not necessarily an exhaustive one, and there is  
always the possibility someone cannot be included. The Employer argued the employees  
should all be placed, and no “orphans” should be left without a unit home. We have approached  
the analysis focused on fairly analyzing the evidence and deciding, first, whether an objection is  
established on a balance of probabilities and, if so, whether the evidence further establishes in  
which of the four units an employee belongs. Only when confronted with an utter evidentiary  
void will an employee be left unplaced.  
Classification: Public  
8
[32]  
We are also of the view it would be useful to set out some extracts regarding pipeline  
trade jurisdictions from the Board’s Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter 25(d): Pipeline  
Construction, page 2 and 3, as they directly inform on our deliberations:  
Each trade jurisdiction is exclusive of the others. The work of employees in each  
trade generally does not overlap. The following is a general guideline of the type  
of work included in each trade jurisdiction. (Refer to the Mainline Pipeline  
Agreement for Canada for scope of work and descriptions of the classifications  
covered by each trade).  
Labourers: This work includes helping the surveyor; directing traffic;  
making up and setting explosives; cutting and clearing trees; locating  
buried structures with an electronic device; cleaning and preparing the  
pipe for the weld (except the final buff); operating a non-mechanical dope  
pot (contains coating mixture); applying the pipe coating; and checking for  
and repairing flaws in the coating; operating power and hand tools such  
as power saw, jackhammer, and drills; fabricating, erecting, installing,  
dismantling, rehabilitating, salvaging, and demolishing all structures and  
accessories connected with pipeline construction such as reinforced  
concrete, pipe insulation, piles and pipe supports; hand digging in ditches  
to maintain the required grade; and, other general labouring duties not  
covered in the other trade jurisdictions.  
Operating Engineers: This work includes: surveying; operating  
equipment such as boom tractors, backfillers, mechanical pipe coating  
equipment, bulldozers, backhoes, cranes, shovel, etc.; heavy duty  
mechanics and service unit operators who repair and service the  
equipment; apprentice operators, mechanics, and engineers who assist  
the journeymen; helpers such as a spotter who assists operators in the  
spotting, placing, maintaining and cleaning of certain types of equipment,  
an oiler who oils, greases and helps the operator on certain types of  
equipment, and a greaser who services vehicles at a location on the site;  
and repair welders who work on the equipment, and their helpers.  
Pipefitters: This work includes: the preparation of the pipe for the weld  
including final buffing of pipe bevels, placing or stabbing a section of pipe  
for spacing, lining up and spacing of two sections of pipe, operating line-  
up clamps when setting in joints of pipe; welders, including rig welders,  
who weld the pipe and their helpers; servicing of automatic welding  
equipment; and all other installing, aligning, fabricating, and fitting of  
linepipe, compression, metering or pump piping valves, components, and  
accessories.  
Teamsters: This work includes: the transportation of workers, materials,  
parts, equipment and machinery to and from the construction site and the  
warehousing of these. This includes the bus drivers who take the  
workers to and from the job site daily, fuel truck drivers, pipe and pole  
trailer truck drivers who haul and string pipe on site, dump truck drivers,  
and other truck drivers on site. The warehouseperson is the receiver and  
Classification: Public  
9
partsperson. S/he is essentially responsible for the materials handling  
function for the job.  
[33]  
To the extent Messrs Campbell, Wiechern, and Walker enlightened us further on this  
jurisdictional information, we have made mention of that in our analysis below.  
[34] With all of these comments in mind, we turn to consider the objections before the Board.  
To help clear the decks, our first order of business concerns a procedural objection brought by  
the Respondents that two of the employees that the Teamsters seek to have placed into its unit  
should not be dealt with by the Board because the Teamstersobjections for these two were  
filed late.  
Late-filed Objections by the Teamsters  
[35]  
The Respondents claim the Teamsters have filed late objections regarding two  
individuals, Tanner Hallum (who the Board Officer had placed in the Labourers’ unit) and  
Clayton Johnson (who was placed in the OEs’ unit), and that the Board should therefore refuse  
these objections.  
[36]  
The Teamsters gave notice of their intent to object to the Board Officer’s placement of  
Mr Johnson and Mr Hallum at the commencement of the hearing on March 16, 2021. This  
particular dispute was argued on March 22, 2021. The next day, the Board advised the parties  
it would reserve its decision, as there was no suggestion the evidence regarding these two  
individuals would take up much time to address or otherwise cause inordinate delay for the  
hearing. The Board indicated if it decided not to accept the late objections, it would disavow  
itself of the related evidence.  
[37]  
The background to these late-filed objections may be summarized as follows. The  
Board Officer’s reports into the four applications were issued on January 27, 2021, and the  
Board indicated the deadline for filing objections to the reports was January 28, 2021. The  
Applicants sought extensions for the filing of objections until February 1, 2021, which the Board  
granted. In its February 1st objection letter, the Teamsters identified six individuals it said were  
placed in the wrong unit. Around this time, the Applicants each made requests for the  
production of documents from the Respondents. This included a request from the Teamsters  
on February 2, 2021, seeking the production of a large number of documents, including with  
respect to the six individuals mentioned in its February 1st correspondence along with five other  
named employees. The February 2nd letter also included a request (#15) for the “[d]etails of any  
employee named or described as Teamster, Warehouse person or Truck driver in the employ of  
the employer between January 1 and February 1, 2021”. On February 5, 2021, the  
Respondents provided production of some of the requested documents, but objected to  
producing others.  
[38]  
The dispute regarding the remaining requests came to a case management hearing for  
determination. On February 10, 2021, the Board issued directives in response to the contested  
Notices to Produce, including with respect to the Teamsters’ request #15, ordering disclosure  
“of any employee named or described as Teamster, Warehouse person, or Truck driver in the  
employ of the Employer who would fall within the requested bargaining unit (worked within 14  
days prior to the application and within 14 days after the application) whose name was not  
disclosed to the Board Officer”. The Employer’s production in response to the directives was  
provided by February 25, 2021. This included the Employer’s answer to the request #15, as  
amended by the Board, wherein it named as additional employees at the ATCO project “Clayton  
Classification: Public  
10  
Johnson (Loader Operator)” and “Tanner Hallium (sic) (Parts Runner)”. As mentioned, on the  
first day of the hearing, March 16th, the Teamsters specifically advised that it was challenging  
the Board Officer’s placement of Mr Johnson into the OEs’ unit and Mr Hallum into the  
Labourers’ unit, asserting each belonged in the Teamsters’ unit.  
[39]  
The Respondents argued the deadline for filing objections to the Board Officer’s report  
was February 1, 2021, and it was not until the start of the hearing that the Teamsters specifically  
indicated it was taking issue with these two individuals. The Respondents urged the Board to  
follow a line of cases that have denied late-filed objections. The Applicants argued the Board  
has the discretion to waive the timelines for the filing of objections and it is appropriate to do so  
here.  
[40]  
The Respondents referred us to a large number of cases where the Board has accepted  
or rejected late-filed objections. We have reviewed those cases and are satisfied a tour through  
that jurisprudence is not required here, as the proper approach to late objections in certification  
matters has been accurately and succinctly set out in one of the cases referred to us by the  
Employer: ATCO Structures & Logistics Ltd. v. UNITE-HERE, Local 47, [2014] Alta. L.R.B.D.  
LD-056 (“ATCO”). In the ATCO decision, at paragraph 9, the Board commented:  
The Board has discretion to hear or not to hear late-filed objections. In  
exercising this discretion, the Board will be mindful of its statutory obligation to  
resolve certification and revocation applications as soon as possible and will be  
particularly concerned with late objections that lead to inappropriate delays in the  
Board’s process. The Board will also be concerned about any prejudice that may  
be experienced by other parties and whether a costs award is appropriate to  
address that prejudice. The reasons for the late objection and the nature of the  
objection may also be relevant. There may, of course, be other relevant  
considerations.  
[41]  
In this case, the Respondents have made no attempt to argue they will suffer any actual  
prejudice should the objections proceed, only that potential prejudice may be incurred, including  
by one or more of the Applicants. Importantly, none of the Applicants suggested they would be  
prejudiced; indeed, each argued the late objections should proceed, despite any detrimental  
impact each might experience by the movement of one or both of these individuals from one  
trade unit to another. There is no real possibility of delay in proceeding with the objections, as  
all the materials that the Teamsters seek to rely on in addressing the objections were already  
before the Board. Further, the principal witness in this hearing, Mr Pentelichuk, was still under  
examination when this particular issue was argued, and he was still under examination in April  
2021 as the hearing continued. It cannot be said there was any real surprise for the  
Respondents with respect to these objections, given they arose directly from the Employer’s  
response to the Teamsters’ request for the names of Teamsters, warehouse personnel, or truck  
drivers that had not been disclosed to the Board Officer. The Employer argued, and we agree,  
the Teamsters’ explanation for its delay in formally objecting to Mr Johnson and Mr Hallum (i.e.  
formally stating as much in a letter to the Board and parties) is weak, namely that it had a  
tremendous amount of electronic production to sift through. The Board frowns upon the failure  
of the Teamsters to provide formal notice of these objections earlier, and emphasizes that timely  
adherence to Board deadlines for the filing of objections is important in ensuring a fair, timely  
and efficient process for all participants. However, in this case, we are satisfied there is no  
prejudice, unfairness, or delay that will result in accepting these two objections. In considering  
what on balance is most just to do in this circumstance, we are comfortable allowing these two  
objections to proceed.  
Classification: Public  
11  
Background Information  
[42] The Pipeline projects that are the subject of the certification applications are referred to  
in this decision as the ATCO project and the Brewster project. According to Mr Pentelichuk,  
around the time of the certification applications, there were approximately 120 people working at  
the ATCO site and around 80 at the Brewster site.  
[43]  
The ATCO project was work the Employer performed for its client ATCO Gas and  
Pipelines Ltd. as part of the Northwest Calgary Connector Project located in Calgary. In her  
report, the Board Officer described the ATCO project as follows:  
Scope of Work: This is the final section of 14.3 km of 20-inch diameter pipeline  
construction of the Urban Pipeline Replacement (“UPR”) Project, which replaces  
and relocates high-pressured natural gas pipelines located in densely populated  
areas of Calgary into the Transportation Utility Corridors surrounding the city.  
This pipeline supplies natural gas to the City of Calgary for distribution.  
Connections: This pipeline is not within a plant and the 15 km portion of this  
project that the Employer is constructing does not connect to a distribution  
centre. There are 4 valve stations along the route that come above ground and  
are fenced.  
Crossings: There are road, water course, buried facilities and miscellaneous  
other locations that the pipeline needs to cross. The pipe sections in these  
situations will be installed via trenchless crossing method (Horizontal Directional  
Drilling, Horizontal Directional Bore or Auger Boring) or will be open cut and  
installed traditionally. These sections will then be welded (tied-in) to the larger  
mainline pipeline section.  
[44]  
The Brewster project was work the Employer performed for Nova Gas Transmission Ltd.  
(TC Energy) in the Rocky Mountain House area. The Board Officer’s description of this project  
was as follows:  
Scope of Work: Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) proposes to construct and  
operate new Pipeline Facilities in the Rocky Mountain House area of the province  
of Alberta. The Brewster Pipeline Project (“BP Project”) is in Clearwater County  
approximately 35 km northwest of Rocky Mountain House, Alberta. The BP  
Project includes approximately 49 km of 48-inch (1219.2 mm) diameter pipeline  
and tie-in facilities. The BP Project is located on 100% Crown land. The BP  
Project will work south to north starting at Vetchland Compressor Station,  
approximately 47 km west-southwest of Rocky Mountain House, ending at the  
Nordegg Compressor Station. The pipeline transports natural gas.  
Connections: The NGTL 2021 Brewster Section Pipeline connects to the  
Vetchland Compressor Station and the Nordegg Compressor Station. This is  
part of the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project. The pipelines tie into the  
Vetchland and Nordegg Compressor Stations. There is pipe fabrication and  
installation at each of these locations to tie into the existing infrastructure. There  
is a small section of pipe that is within the boundary of the plant. The majority of  
the project is outside of the facility on the TC Energy Nova Right of Way.  
Classification: Public  
12  
Crossings: There are road, water course, buried facilities and miscellaneous  
other locations that the pipeline needs to cross. The pipe sections in these  
situations will be installed via trenchless crossing method (Horizontal Directional  
Drilling, Horizontal Directional Bore or Auger Boring) or will be open cut and  
installed traditionally. These sections will then be welded (tied-in) to the larger  
mainline pipeline section.  
[45]  
Mr Pentelichuk provided further evidence to the Board about both of these projects.  
Where relevant and helpful, we have referred to it in our analysis below.  
The Pipefitters’ Objections  
[46]  
During closing arguments, the Pipefitters and the Employer agreed to exclude Lyn Smith  
from the Pipefitters unit. They also agreed, along with the Labourers, that Kelsey Penno would  
be placed into the Pipefitters unit.  
[47]  
The remaining Pipefitters’ objections can be slotted into two main categories: employees  
that were included in its bargaining unit but were not at work on the day of the application; and  
employees included by the Board Officer but who were not performing bargaining unit work on  
or around the day of the Pipefitters’ application – January 8, 2021.  
Employees Not at Work  
[48]  
The Pipefitters object to the Board Officer’s inclusion of 14 employees in the Pipefitters  
bargaining unit, arguing they were not at work on the date of the Pipefitter’s application (January  
8, 2021). The employees affected by this objection are: Ymer Demaku, Bradley Genaille,  
Cooper Grisak, Slavomir Heyduk, Parker Hoppe, Khris Kharoufeh, Luke Klashinsky, Brendan  
McLeod, Brandon Melan, Calvyn Reith, Jason Sinclair, Gordie Sproule, James Tallaire, and  
Shawn Tedford.  
[49]  
Mr Pentelichuk explained the Employer advised the Board Officer during her  
investigation that these 14 individuals were at work on the date of the application because they  
were listed on a timesheet for January 8th and they had been paid in the relevant pay period. As  
mentioned, the Board Officer did not have the employment records to substantiate the  
Employer’s positon on these employees at the time she prepared her report.  
[50]  
With the employment records now before the Board, and Mr Pentelichuk’s testimony in  
relation to it, we find the Officer’s conclusion the 14 fourteen employees were at work on the day  
of the application is not tenable. Summarized briefly, the evidence establishes the 14  
employees were on the January 8th timesheet because the Employer allocated a travel  
allowance for each to that day, without heed to when the individuals actually travelled to site to  
commence work. In this regard, the Board views the fact that their names have been recorded  
on the January 8th timesheet as an accounting convenience for the Employer, which is  
inadequate for establishing the individuals in question were actually present at work that day.  
Indeed, there is no evidence any of them performed work duties on January 8th or in the 14 days  
prior. If anything, the evidence indicates it is far more likely the employees were not on-site until  
January 9th, when they filled in and signed their hire-on sheets, had their hiring approved by the  
project manager, and then were sent out to commence their work duties.  
Classification: Public  
13  
[51]  
The importance of the employees being present at work is a key factor in assessing the  
level of support present for a certification application. As the Board stated in CJA Local 1325 v.  
Stuart Olson Contracting Inc., [2001] Alta. L.R.B.R. 91 at paragraph 18:  
The union chooses the date to apply for certification and must, for the most part,  
take the workplace as it finds it. The union’s organizing efforts will have been  
directed towards employees that it can, without great difficulty, identify. The  
employer schedules the work, although in construction, outside factors can  
influence who is at work on a given day, if anyone is. Including in the bargaining  
unit employees whose identity might be unknown to the union has the potential to  
jeopardize and undermine union attempts to organize.  
[52]  
And at paragraphs 26 and 27, the Board commented:  
The Code provides employees the right to select a trade union of their choice to  
represent them. An organizing drive involves a continuum of activity, ultimately  
concluding in a representation vote and a Board directive. In order to apply for  
certification, a union must show support of at least 40% of the employees in the  
unit applied for. To gain that support requires some activity by the employees at  
that time. They begin to acquire an interest in the bargaining agent and its ability  
to represent them. … The employee must be employed when the application is  
filed to be counted in the threshold support or to have an initial entitlement to  
vote.  
Presence at work on the date of the application is the critical factor. If the  
employee was not present at work, they can demonstrate their interest in the  
application by showing that they worked in the period both before and after the  
date of application or, where absent, on a Board recognized leave. In the  
interests of balancing practical expediency and individual rights, the Board has  
adopted the 14 day / 14 day rule with respect to the construction industry. …  
(emphasis added)  
[53]  
The Employer points to the Board’s decision in USWA Local 6034 v. Sears Canada Inc.,  
[2001] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-069 (“Sears”) as the approach that should be followed in this situation.  
In Sears, individuals that had been paid for attending mandatory orientation sessions that took  
place on the day the union filed a certification application, but prior to commencing their other  
duties, were found to be employees in the bargaining unit and eligible to vote.  
[54]  
We find Sears distinguishable and not indicative of an approach the Board must follow.  
Unlike in Sears, there is no evidence any of the fourteen individuals were paid for participating  
in online orientation sessions prior to arriving on site. Further, in Sears, the Board was satisfied  
that offers of employment had been accepted prior to the certification application date. Here,  
the evidence is unclear as to whether these individuals accepted an offer to work for the  
Employer prior to their arrival on site, which is when they were presented with their hire-on  
paperwork, including the terms and conditions of their employment, and signed on.  
[55]  
Local 2 argues the payment of the travel allowance constitutes wages under the Code,  
and on that basis the individuals should be treated as employees at work and included in the  
unit. This argument ignores Board jurisprudence that emphasizes the value placed on evidence  
that shows the employees in question were performing work duties in the relevant period  
Classification: Public  
14  
placing them within the scope of the bargaining unit at issue. The Board stated in CLAC Local  
63 v. 1438503 Alberta Limited, [2010] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-004 at paragraph 7:  
In a certification application, the key time frame for assessing which individuals  
populate the bargaining unit is the date of the application. For example, the  
prime function test i.e., the test used to determine whether an employee’s work  
functions place them within the scope of the bargaining unit at issue is centered  
on the work performed by an employee in the time around the date of the  
application. The Board’s Voting Rules, which are used for the purposes of  
considering whether an applicant union has the requisite 40% support and  
determining who can vote, are also tied to the date of the application. So long as  
employees are performing duties that place them within the scope of the relevant  
unit and meet the requirements of the Voting Rules, they are viewed as  
populating the bargaining unit.  
[56]  
In this regard, we are without any evidence to suggest the 14 individuals were  
performing work duties that would place them in the Pipefitters unit, or any other unit for that  
matter, on or before January 8th. To the contrary, Mr Pentelichuk confirmed employees fill out  
their employment documentation on the first day they show up at the job site, which he stated  
“is the date they would have started executing work on site”. For all 14 of the employees at  
issue here, the evidence firmly establishes that date was January 9, 2021.  
[57]  
As a result, we are satisfied the Pipefitters have brought forward sufficient contrary  
evidence to overturn the Board Officer’s conclusion the fourteen employees were at work on the  
date of the application. Accordingly, Messrs Demaku, Genaille, Grisak, Heyduk, Hoppe,  
Kharoufeh, Klashinsky, McLeod, Melan, Reith, Sinclair, Sproule, Tallaire, and Tedford are not  
included in the Pipefitters’ bargaining unit.  
David Khadikin  
[58]  
The Pipefitters object to the inclusion of David Khadikin in their bargaining unit, asserting  
he should be excluded as he was not at work on the day of the application nor in the 14 days  
prior. The Employer had indicated in one of its spreadsheet submissions to the Board Officer  
that David Khadikin was at work on January 8th. The payroll and timesheet records for Mr  
Khadikin however indicate he was at work on December 13, 2020, and then did not work again  
until January 11, 2021. No explanation was provided for why Mr Khadikin was noted in the  
spreadsheet as at work on January 8th. On this clear and contrary documentary evidence, we  
find David Khadikin should not be included in the Pipefitters’ bargaining unit.  
Not Performing Bargaining Unit Work  
Joe Plazio  
[59]  
The Pipefitters object to Joe Plazio’s inclusion in its bargaining unit. Mr Plazio was one  
of the employees at the Brewster project and classified as a Straw Boss on the Assemblies  
crew. The Pipefitters argue there was no welding or pipefitting work occurring on or around the  
date of the application that would justify placing him in the Pipefitters’ unit. While the evidence  
was rather diverse on what exactly straw bosses do on a pipeline construction crew, for our  
purposes here, it can be simply indicated that they are the second-in-charge on a work crew,  
behind the foreman.  
Classification: Public  
15  
[60]  
According to the Employer’s evidence, welding activities had not yet commenced on the  
Brewster site as that project didn’t have all its approvals in place. The Board Officer’s report  
indicates as much, stating there was “[n]o welding or pipefitting on the project on this date”. Mr  
Pentelichuk acknowledged Mr Plazio was not included in the Employer’s spreadsheet  
submission to the Board Officer, and he could only guess that Mr Plazio ended up being  
assigned to the Pipefitters’ unit because he was with the crew “putting together the fabrication  
pieces that would be at the ends of the pipeline… he is with the welding guys… on the  
receivers… to tie pipes into facility locations”. While work of this nature might constitute  
pipefitting work, there is no evidence it was taking place in the relevant period. The only  
timesheet we were pointed to for the Assemblies crew was from January 8th, and it has no  
comments written on it regarding the crew’s activities that day. Mr Pentelichuk testified pipeline  
production work did not commence at that site until later in the month. Further, it would appear  
the other employees on that timesheet are higher in rank to Mr Plazio, making it quite  
improbable he was functioning in a supervisory role as a Straw Boss. The Employer contends  
removing Mr Plazio from the Pipefitters’ unit is problematic because there are other employees  
in the unit similarly situated, but that claim lacks merit as Mr Plazio was the only employee from  
the Brewster project included by the Board Officer in the Pipefitters’ unit.  
[61]  
In our view, the evidence does not suggest pipefitting work was taking place on January  
8th, and we were pointed to no other evidence that might indicate it was occurring immediately  
before or after the 8th. In that regard, Mr Plazio’s somewhat mysterious placement into the  
Pipefitters’ unit does not appear justified. The paucity of evidence concerning his activities, and  
those of his crew, also make it impossible to establish whether one of the other trade based  
units might constitute a better placement for Mr Plazio. We entertained the possibility of leaving  
him in the Pipefitters’ unit if he had been hired as a pipefitter, but his hire-on documents indicate  
he was hired as a Straw Boss, and without any sense of any trade affiliation that he might have.  
On balance, we are of the view that Mr Plazio is best treated as a trade unit orphan. He is to be  
removed from the Pipefittersunit and left unassigned.  
Cody Ewald  
[62]  
Cody Ewald is the subject of objections from the Pipefitters, the OEs, and the Labourers.  
The OEs want him out of its unit. The Pipefitters claim him for its unit, while the Labourers say  
he is most appropriately treated as a labourer. Our analysis concerning Mr Ewald is addressed  
under the portion of this decision dealing with the OEs’ objections, specifically at paragraphs 82  
- 84. The result of that analysis is Mr Ewald should be placed into the Labourers’ unit.  
Dwayne Kut  
[63]  
The Pipefitters originally filed an objection to the Board Officer’s report excluding  
Dwayne Kut from its bargaining unit. The Board Officer had placed him in the OEs’ unit. At the  
time of their objection, the Pipefitters argued Mr Kut was a bending engineer, a position that  
performs pipefitting work. At the hearing’s close, the Pipefitters withdrew that objection. Briefly,  
the Board Officer appears to have relied on the Employer’s earlier spreadsheet submissions  
indicating Mr Kut was an employee performing work in the OEs’ jurisdiction and that he did not  
have managerial duties. Of note however, the Employer had provided information in a letter to  
the Board Officer listing Mr Kut as one of its foremen with the authority to hire, fire and discipline  
employees. With the benefit of the additional documentary and testimonial evidence now before  
the Board regarding Mr Kut, it is apparent he should be treated as an excluded manager, an  
outcome the OEs submitted would be appropriate. The Employer was silent on Mr Kut’s status.  
Classification: Public  
16  
In sum, pursuant to the definition of “employee” contained in section 1(l)(i) of the Code, Mr Kut  
is to be excluded from all of the trade units because of his managerial functions.  
[64]  
The Pipefitters’ remaining objections concern four employees it argues have been  
unjustifiably included on the Pipefitters’ list. The information the Employer provided to the Board  
Officer indicated these four should be treated as pipefitters. The Pipefitters submit the evidence  
does not support such a conclusion.  
Jason Beauchamp and Clifford Mullis  
[65]  
Two of the employees, Jason Beauchamp and Clifford Mullis, were part of the Facilities  
crew at the ATCO project. The Employer’s information provided to the Board Officer suggested  
the Facilities crew was pipefitting, as it had a welding fabrication scope with some civil work for  
excavation of facilities. In his testimony, Mr Pentelichuk agreed his comments on the crew were  
general in nature and that he did not understand the jurisdictional work lines between the  
various building trades unions on a pipeline project. Mr Pentelichuk also agreed not everyone in  
the Facilities crew was a pipefitter, and this is borne out in the timesheets which identify only Mr  
Beauchamp as a pipefitter. Mr Mullis is described as “Specialized Labour”, while on his hire-on  
sheets he is a “pipefitter helper” and in the payroll records a “helper”.  
[66]  
The foreman’s comments from the January 8th timesheet regarding the work performed  
by the Facilities crew that day state: “Continue stripping topsoil, hydro-vac & expose buried  
Enmax cable, set-up laydown, snow fence & sign hydro-vac holes, receiving tools coordinating  
material pick-up, coordinate pile install”. In our view, none of these comments suggest  
pipefitting work was occurring, rather they speak of work typically performed by labourers and  
operating engineers. On or around the date of the application, the only notation by the foreman  
on the timesheets that is suggestive of pipefitting work is “attend ATCO weld training” from the  
January 7th timesheet; however, there is no specific indication of who might have participated in  
that training or for how long. In sum, we find the evidence regarding Mr Beauchamp and Mr  
Mullis does not support keeping them in the Pipefitters’ unit. The question that follows is  
whether the evidence points to an appropriate alternative placement for one or both.  
[67]  
The foreman’s comments on the timesheets for this crew in the period from January 5th  
to 12th are more detailed than many other crews and this aids in our deliberations. The work  
listed in this period largely included: attending site and reviewing conditions there, loading  
equipment and materials and moving them to site, performing surveying-like duties at times in  
conjunction with ATCO representatives, sign installation, fencing, coordinating surveys,  
coordinating stripping and access of laydown areas, transporting skids and construction,  
cleaning the site, and specifically “stripping top soil with grader and stock piling”, “working with  
30 T picker truck”, “grade stripped top soil for 2 hours”, and “D6 dozer down waiting on  
replacement pin”. These comments indeed indicate that a healthy mix of labouring and  
operating engineer tasks were taking place in the relevant period. When asked about this crew,  
Mr Pentelichuk stated it was unlikely that Mr Mullis would have been operating the excavator.  
[68]  
In our view, the evidence is sufficiently clear and detailed enough that we are  
comfortable in placing Mr Mullis into the Labourers’ unit. He was hired as a helper and  
classified as specialized labourer on the timesheet. While the ultimate production game plan for  
Mr Mullis was probably to have him assist with the pipefitting once it commenced in earnest, in  
this period we think it is reasonable to conclude he was assigned in the interim to help with the  
general construction labouring tasks as this crew got itself organized.  
Classification: Public  
17  
[69]  
As for Mr Beauchamp, he too should be placed into the Labourers’ unit. There was  
already one operator assigned to this crew (Klayton Dutton, specifically addressed under the  
Labourers’ objections, at paragraphs 169 - 173) when a second (Dannis Sadice) was added and  
engaged in work by January 8th. Given the sizable amount of labouring work listed in the  
timesheets, we think a probable view of the situation emanating from the evidence is that Mr  
Beauchamp, while awaiting the commencement of the actual pipefitting work, contributed by  
assisting with the many labouring jobs.  
Michael Froude and James Hopkins  
[70]  
The other two employees that the Pipefitters contend should not be included in their unit  
given the work that was being done at the time were Michael Froude and James Hopkins. They  
were part of the ATCO Stove Pipe Crew 2. The Employer’s spreadsheet submission to the  
Board Officer included these two employees on its Pipefitters list. The remaining members of  
the ATCO Stove Pipe Crew 2 were placed by the Board Officer either in the OEs’ unit or the  
Labourers’ unit.  
[71]  
The employment records before the Board indicate this crew’s first day of work was  
January 8th. While the crew’s timesheet for that day lists Mr Froude and Mr Hopkins as “fitters”,  
and their hire-on sheets state they were “spacers”, the foreman’s bulleted comments for  
January 8th state the crew was engaged in: “orientation for crew; go over JSA’s & paperwork;  
help out with yard, general cleanup; rig up trucks with warehouse back orders; get compressors  
running and both sets of internal clamps – all working good”. Mr Pentelichuk testified there was  
no production welding going on at this time and the activities centered on general support and  
setup. He also testified the information assembled by the Employer for the Board Officer was  
constructed primarily from how each employee had been hired, as opposed to what each  
employee was doing on any given day. Mr Pentelichuk acknowledged the best information  
regarding what was happening on any given day was the foreman’s comments on the  
timesheets. The description on the timesheet for January 8th does not suggest pipefitting work  
was occurring in any appreciable way on that day. However, we are not inclined to remove  
these two pipefitters from the Pipefitters unit as a result of analysis based solely upon a single  
day of timesheet entries. Although the listed operators on the timesheet did not appear to work  
on the 9th, the rest of the crew did, and the timesheet indicates materials were moved to a  
location “for welding”. The crew was off on the 10th, but by their next day on the job, the 11th,  
the timesheets record that the crew “made 7 welds”. This is pipefitting work, and it is taking  
place by these individuals’ third day of work. While this evidence is perhaps of lesser weight  
than evidence pre-dating the application, we have neither assertions nor evidence of Employer  
gerrymandering and the employees in question were present in the workplace on the date of  
Pipefitters’ application. In our view, this is reliable evidence that supports these two individuals  
staying where the Board Officer placed them – in the Pipefitters’ unit.  
The OEs’ Objections  
[72]  
At closing argument, it was confirmed by agreement of the Employer and the OEs that  
Ian Pitt-Taylor would be removed from the OEs’ list.  
[73]  
The OEs’ objections that remain unresolved generally concern employees designated as  
Straw Bosses that were included in its unit when such positions are out of scope under the OEs’  
Mainline Pipeline Construction Agreement; and employees included in its unit when they were  
not performing bargaining unit work in the relevant period. The OEs’ application date was  
January 8, 2021.  
Classification: Public  
18  
Straw Bosses  
The OEs object to the inclusion of 12 straw bosses in their unit: Travis Dubeau, Cody  
[74]  
Ewald, James Fennell, Mason Groves, Jessi Hambler, Jessie Muise, Neil Rode, Rocky Schultz,  
Brady Smith, Hunter St. Louis, Jackson Thompson, and Kyle Whalen. The OEs argue including  
straw bosses in its unit is inappropriate because: the position is not trade specific; they  
supervise multi-disciplinary crews; they do not work on the tools, and they have historically been  
out of scope of the operating engineers’ unit in the pipeline construction industry. The OEs  
assert the evidence now before the Board regarding the prime function of these 12 straw  
bosses in the relevant period indicates all but one were not performing the work of operating  
engineers and they should be excluded on that basis. With respect to Mr Thompson, the OEs  
argue he should be excluded because straw bosses are treated as out of scope under the OEs  
Mainline Pipeline Agreement for Canada.  
[75]  
The Employer states its original rationale on the straw bosses, as shared with the Board  
Officer, is that each should be placed in the bargaining unit most reflective of the work being  
performed by the crew they would be supervising. Mr Pentelichuk admitted some of the straw  
bosses were placed with the OEs when it was not clear what unit was appropriate. He  
acknowledged, having reviewed the timesheet evidence, that some or all of the straw bosses  
should be re-evaluated. In the Employer’s submission, it urged the Board to deal with the  
objected-to-straw bosses in a fashion similar to how they were placed elsewhere and not leave  
any orphans, that is, employees without a home in any of the four trade units. The Labourers,  
clearly alive to the possibility some individuals placed in other trade units could end up being  
placed in their own, assert for those straw bosses that the Board finds do not belong in the OEs’  
unit, and which the Labourers are not claiming for their own, there is insufficient evidence to  
justify putting them elsewhere. The Teamsters made no specific argument regarding the straw  
bosses, but did argue that job titles do not really matter on ins and outs, and the prime function  
analysis applies.  
[76]  
There is no dispute from any of the parties an assessment of the prime function of the  
employees in question is the appropriate first step in the analysis. To whatever extent the  
Board Officer was able to contemplate prime function, she did so without direct access to the  
employment documentation, and further there is no indication from her reports she spoke to any  
supervisors or employees. Mr Pentelichuk acknowledged the most informative evidence the  
Board now has before it regarding what the crew members were doing on any given day is  
found in the foreman’s comments on the timesheets. To that we would add the Board now has  
some Daily Tailgate Meeting records which also identify tasks performed on certain days by  
certain crews.  
[77]  
What was missing from the evidence, save for one witness brought forward by the  
Teamsters, was direct testimony from the employees in question or their supervisors. Of  
course, such direct evidence would be particularly helpful in analyzing the employees’ prime  
function, but its absence is not (despite the Employer’s and Local 2’s cautionary exhortations to  
the contrary) an impediment to the Board examining the accuracy of the Board Officer’s findings  
on where each employee should be placed, when other helpful information is available. This  
case is noteworthy in that, for whatever reason it occurred, the Board Officer was without  
primary source documentation, such as hire-on, payroll, and timesheet records, regarding what  
the subject employees were doing on any given day. Through the production disclosure efforts  
of the Applicants, that grist for the mill is now before us, and if we are satisfied the evidence is  
sufficiently reliable and compelling, the Board can elect to arrive at different outcomes than the  
Classification: Public  
19  
Officer. We are also of the view the objected-to employees should be placed into one of the  
four units whenever possible. It is well-settled there are only four building trades involved in the  
registration pipeline sector, each trade jurisdiction is exclusive of the others, and the work of  
employees in each trade generally does not overlap (See: Board’s Policy and Procedure  
Manual, chapter 25(d), Pipeline Construction, page 2). Only if the evidence is completely  
uncertain (as it was regarding Mr Plazio) will we leave one of the objected-to employees  
stranded without a unit.  
[78]  
In any event, with regard to the straw bosses, our analysis reveals all but one of them  
can be addressed on a prime function basis alone without reference to how they are treated  
under the OEs’ Mainline Agreement. The one exception to that is Jackson Thompson, who we  
address at the end of this section.  
Travis Dubeau  
[79]  
The OEs challenge the inclusion of Travis Dubeau, arguing he was not performing  
operating engineer functions on January 8th, its application date.  
[80]  
Mr Dubeau was part of the Coating Crew, a group of 13 workers, comprised of a  
foreman, Mr Dubeau as the straw boss, and 11 other employees, 10 of whom were hired as  
specialized labourers or coaters, positions that would typically be considered as belonging to  
the Labourers’ unit if involved in non-mechanized coating, pipe treatment, or general labourer  
work. Of note, the Labourers did not challenge the Board Officer’s placement of these 10  
employees into its unit, a finding that is supported by the timesheet for January 11th, the date of  
Labourer’s application, which indicates the crew that day was involved in: “coating pre-phase  
meeting in F’s office; washed trucks and approved use on row; worked in the yard building wind  
boards for coating”, duties that can be comfortably characterized as those performed by  
labourers. The tasks recorded for the crew on the timesheets for January 5th 7th had a mix of  
duties, described as: “orientation and sign-up; set-up mixing shack #1; set-up coil truck in the  
yard; set-up for coating in the yard; training for drivers logbook; fit-testing for half-mask  
respirators; coating school in the yard”. On January 8th, the OEs’ application date, the foreman  
recorded the Coating Crew’s tasks that day as: “finished setting up trucks for coating; attended  
ATCO coating seminar”. The Coating Crew did not work on January 9th or 10th. The Daily  
Tailgate Meeting forms for this crew, entered into evidence by the Teamsters, largely  
corroborates these entries.  
[81]  
On balance, the evidence favours placing Travis Dubeau in the Labourers’ unit. The  
description of the duties in the period up to January 12th in the Daily Tailgate Meeting forms  
confirm the crew was largely engaged in rigging up the trucks and equipment needed for the  
actual coating work, which the forms indicate commenced around January 13th. Apart from a  
question concerning the duties being performed by the sole operator listed on this crew, Troy  
Langley, who we consider later in these reasons, the evidence from the relevant period strikes  
us as predominantly describing general set-up construction duties of the Labourers. Whether  
Mr Dubeau was directly involved in or was supervising that work, he is best placed in the  
Labourers’ unit.  
Cody Ewald  
[82]  
The OEs and Pipefitters object to the inclusion of Cody Ewald in the OEs’ unit. Mr  
Ewald was hired as a Straw Boss and was part of the Bending & Setup crew, which also  
comprised a foreman, one person hired as an operator, one initially hired as a labourer but then  
Classification: Public  
20  
reclassified soon after to an operator (Henry Cardinal Jr.), and three hired as specialized  
labourers. Mr Pentelichuk testified Mr Ewald was put in with the OEs because he “was with the  
bending guys and they are operators”, but acknowledged this is a composite crew. The Board  
Officer placed the operators on this crew in the OEs’ unit and the specialized labourers into the  
Labourers’ unit. The OEs argue, as do the Pipefitters, there is insufficient evidence regarding  
the work being performed to support Mr Ewald being in the OEs’ unit, and he is best placed in  
the Pipefitters unit as it can be inferred from the evidence he was operating a mandrel (a device  
used to assist with the bending of pipe which is normally operated by a pipefitter) in the relevant  
period. If not a Pipefitter, the OEs submit he belongs in the Labourers’ unit. The Mainline  
Pipeline Agreements for the Pipefitters and Labourers treat Straws Bosses as in-scope. The  
Labourers argue Mr Ewald should in fact be in their unit.  
[83]  
The timesheet for Mr Ewald’s crew for January 8th, the date the OEs and Pipefitters filed  
their certification applications, describes the unloading of elbow spools from trailers, assisting  
with the “Trans” machine, building skid piles for the elbows, and loading pipe onto trailers, which  
is the largely work of the Labourers. The foreman’s comments on the timesheets for the days  
leading up to the 8th describe tasks that again are largely those of the Labourers, including  
setting up pipe onto skids, covering the pipe, doing a general clean-up, and bringing in more  
skids, although it would be expected some operating engineerswork would be taking place as  
the larger pipe was moved. In terms of pipefitting work, the timesheets identify only two days in  
the relevant period when that was occurring, first on January 5th when a test bend was done in  
the yard, and second on January 9th when some or all of the crew “went to Rd 4 to bend pipe”,  
but this was one job of many on the 9th which included more loading and unloading of pipe and  
pipe joints at various locations. With respect to the bending of pipe on the 5th, the Pipefitters  
assert it is their information Mr Ewald is a pipefitter, a mandrel would have been used on the 5th  
as part of the bending exercise, and it can be inferred that as Mr Ewald was the only pipefitter  
on the crew, he worked the mandrel. The crew did not work on January 10th. On January 11th,  
the application date for the Labourers, the only foreman comments on the timesheet are: “Made  
two bends at 4. Bending machine broke. Motor is burnt”. If other work was taking place that  
day it was not recorded. On January 12th, the crew was largely engaged with unloading pipe,  
and setting up and assisting with sections of pipe, which we view as largely the work of  
labourers.  
[84]  
The preponderance of the evidence is there was more labourer work occurring in the  
relevant period than other trade work. The Employer called no evidence to assert otherwise.  
The crew was comprised of more labourers than the other trades, little pipefitting work appears  
to have taken place in the relevant period, and none on or immediately near the Pipefitters’  
application date. We have no convincing evidence to establish, or otherwise comfortably infer,  
that Mr Ewald was working as an operating engineer or pipefitter in this period, let alone as a  
mandrel operator on January 5th. While the Labourers have a similar problem in that on its  
application date (January 11th) the work taking place is described as pipe bending, that work  
typically includes contributions by labourers, whether they are measuring and marking the pipe,  
handling the load line, or performing other related duties. Further, at some point on the 11th, the  
bending of pipe was called off due to equipment failure. Overall, we find it far more probable  
than not the Bending & Setup crew was mostly engaged in labouring work in the relevant period  
and on this basis Mr Ewald is best situated in the Labourers’ unit.  
James Fennell  
[85]  
The OEs object to the inclusion of James Fennell in its unit. Mr Fennell was hired as a  
Straw Boss on the Auger Bore Support Crew 4, which included a foreman, three specialized  
Classification: Public  
21  
labourers (placed by the Board Officer into the Labourers’ unit) and three operators (placed into  
the OEs’ unit). The OEs assert there is insufficient evidence to indicate operating engineer work  
was taking place, as emphasised by there being no heavy duty equipment or machinery in use  
in the relevant period that would require an operating engineer.  
[86]  
The foreman’s comments for the January 8th timesheet state “cut the pavement and  
concrete with the subcontractor. Hydrovaced two site holes on the road. Set-up all our security  
fence”. The timesheets in the surrounding days describe similar type activities and none record  
any heavy duty equipment or machinery being assigned to this crew. The timesheet for January  
11th specifically states: “Hydro vac both sides of the road. Slot trench behind the concrete so I  
can remove the concrete. Placed matts along the road. Installed security fence around area”.  
[87]  
Mr Pentelichuk testified the Employer contracts out all its hydrovac work. He also stated  
a foreman is expected to record on the timesheets the equipment the crew has, but  
acknowledged there is a lot of equipment moving around, some of it is rented, and a crew may  
use equipment that has been assigned to another crew if it is for a day or less of work. We also  
note the crew, by both hire and unit assignment, is equally split between operators and  
labourers and the Labourers and the OEs did not object to those assignments.  
[88]  
In our view, while it remains possible the operators on this crew may have been  
operating equipment or machinery in the relevant period, there is no solid evidence to  
substantiate that, and the description of the work itself on or around January 8th strongly points  
to it belonging to the Labourers. By January 11th, it would appear the predominant duties  
undertaken by the crew had not substantially changed. As a result of this evidence, we find the  
more sensible assignment for Mr Fennell is the Labourers’ bargaining unit.  
Mason Groves  
[89]  
The OEs object to the inclusion of Mason Groves in its bargaining unit. In many ways,  
Mr Groves’ situation is similar to Mr Fennell’s. Mr Groves was hired as a Straw Boss on the  
Auger Bore Support Crew 4, which included a foreman, three individuals hired as operators, and  
two as specialized labourers. Their hiring designations align with the trade units they were  
assigned to by the Officer. As with Mr Fennell, the OEs argue Mr Groves does not, as a Straw  
Boss, belong in its unit. The Labourers make a claim for Mr Groves, arguing the evidence  
indicates this crew was doing bell-hole excavation on January 7th, Mr Walker’s opinion of this  
crew was he expected it was performing mostly labourers’ work, and he knew Mr Groves from  
other pipeline jobs where he had functioned as a labourer.  
[90]  
The timesheets in play in the relevant period for this crew indicate it was predominantly  
engaged in bell-hole excavation work at two locations, where it would appear hydrovac work  
was also taking place, and then later installation and set-up of trench boxes. On January 8th,  
the foreman’s comments on the timesheet state: “Hydrovac lines @ SF 17”, while on January  
11th the comments indicate “Installed and set-up trench box @ SF 16. Bellhole excavation at  
SF 16”. In the period from January 6th to January 12th, the timesheets also indicate the crew  
was involved in setting up security fences and installing drainage rock into some of the dug  
holes. The equipment assigned to this crew is mostly pick-up trucks and a van, with the only  
heavy duty machinery listed being an excavator. The timesheets and Job Hazard Assessment  
(JHA) documentation makes it highly likely the excavator was run by one of the operators (Antar  
Kalaf, who is listed as a “Hoe Op”), while the other two operators are listed on the JHA sheet for  
January 11th as a “Boom Hand” (or “side boom op”) and a “Hoe Hand”. This is likely indicative  
of them having a “helper” role around any such machinery, although there is no clear evidence a  
Classification: Public  
22  
side-boom was in use at the time. Of note, on January 10th an additional labourer (Jordan  
Tobin) was added to the crew.  
[91]  
Our overall assessment of the evidence relating to Mr Groves’ crew is it was performing  
a mix of operating engineer and labourer work, but predominantly work of the labouring variety.  
To the extent Mr Groves was mostly supervising this crew as a Straw, he is better characterized  
as overseeing a labouring crew. Mr Groves should be placed into the Labourers’ unit.  
Jessi Hambler  
[92]  
The OEs object to Jessi Hambler being included in its unit. Mr Hambler was a Straw  
Boss on the Hydrovac/Open Cut crew. The only other person on the crew was the foreman.  
Apart from the OEs’ across-the-board argument on the Straws Bosses that they are excluded as  
out of scope under registration, the OEs point out on a prime function analysis that there is no  
heavy duty equipment listed on this crew’s timesheets; and the Employer has offered no  
evidence to support he belongs with the OEs.  
[93]  
Throughout the period of January 5 12, 2021, the timesheets consistently indicate  
third-party contractors were engaged in various hydrovac work, often sighting holes and  
exposing utility lines at different locations. On the January 9th timesheet, along with the sighting  
of holes, other work is described (such as cutting pavement, sono-tube placement, covering and  
placing and sealing a steel plate) that we consider labouring work. There is no evidence to  
indicate if Mr Hambler and his foreman were actually doing these tasks, nor is there evidence  
the crew had its own heavy duty equipment. When asked about the hydrovac work listed on the  
January 8th timesheet, Mr Pentelichuk stated the two crew members would have been  
“supervising and supporting” the work. He acknowledged he did not speak to the Board Officer  
specifically about Mr Hambler.  
[94]  
Based on the evidence now before the Board, the best that can be said about Mr  
Hambler’s situation is he was predominantly supervising and supporting the work of contractors  
doing the hydrovac work. The only labouring work occurred on January 9th and none occurred  
on the Labourers’ application date. There is no basis for keeping Mr Hambler in the OEs’ unit  
on this evidence, and insufficient evidence to place him elsewhere. To use the vernacular of the  
Employer, Mr Hambler will be treated as an orphan for the purposes of these applications, and  
placed in no unit.  
Jessi Muise  
[95]  
The OEs object to the inclusion of Jessie Muise as a Straw Boss in its unit. Mr Muise  
was a part of the Bending Engineering crew which had Mr Kut as its foreman along with two  
workers listed on the timesheets as specialized labour and two others listed as Measure Men  
(Dustin Hanson, Kyle Whalen). The Board Officer placed three of these workers into the  
Labourers’ unit, but placed Mr Whalen into the OEs’ unit as a Straw Boss, an outcome objected  
to by the OEs, and that we discuss further below. The OEs argue there is no basis to find Mr  
Muise was functioning as an operating engineer. As for the Labourers, its position on Mr Muise  
falls into a general argument it made, namely that if it does not make any specific submission on  
an objected-to employee, then its position is there is insufficient evidence to justify removing  
that employee from one unit and placing them into the Labourers’ unit.  
[96]  
The evidence concerning the Bending Engineering crew indicates that, in the relevant  
period, it was predominantly engaged in assessing the topography of the right-of-way in various  
Classification: Public  
23  
locations and laying out, measuring, centering and marking up pipe, presumably in advance of  
bending activities. According to the timesheets, other activities of the crew included the painting  
of stakes and sign work. There is no heavy duty equipment (including such things as a side-  
boom, bending machine, or mandrel) listed on the timesheets and there is no evidence the  
actual bending of pipe was taking place, which would typically involve operating engineers and  
pipefitters. As Mr Pentelichuk stated, while one can not tell from the timesheets what exactly Mr  
Muise was doing, “he would have been engaged in the activities described in the comments” on  
the timesheets. In sum, and despite the Labourersgeneral objection, the evidence firmly  
indicates the crew was mostly involved in labouring work. Whether Mr Muise was directly  
engaged in that work or supervising it, he is best placed in the Labourers’ bargaining unit.  
Kyle Whalen  
[97]  
To stay with the Bending Engineering crew, we consider the case of Kyle Whalen. The  
OEs object to his inclusion in its unit. The Labourers argue Mr Whalen should be in its  
bargaining unit. Mr Whalen was hired as a “Measuring Straw” on January 5, 2021, entered into  
the payroll system with a listed occupation of Straw Boss, and initially paid a Straw Boss rate  
($43/hour) up until January 9th. Notably, for the next pay period his occupation was changed to  
“Measure” with a commensurate rate change to $41/hour. The January 5th timesheet reflects  
this initial uncertainty about his occupational status, with the foreman circling his hand-written  
position for Mr Whalen of “Measure Straw” and noting “still to confirm”. On the January 6th  
timesheet, Mr Whalen is hand-written in as a “Straw”, but on January 7th as a “Measure Man”.  
By the January 8th timesheet he is permanently entered into the system as a “Measure Man”.  
[98]  
Mr Pentelichuk was asked about Mr Whalen’s placement into the OEs’ unit when his  
fellow Measure Man on the crew, Mr Hanson, was placed into the Labourers’ unit. Mr  
Pentelichuk explained the placement of Mr Whalen into the OEs’ unit was likely a function of  
him initially being listed as a Straw and that crew’s eventual work would be the bending of pipe,  
but he agreed Mr Whalen was better situated in the Labourers’ unit. We agree with Mr  
Pentelichuk, as the balance of the evidence has this crew performing largely labouring tasks.  
Mr Whalen is to be placed in the Labourers’ unit.  
Neil Rode  
[99]  
The OEs object to Neil Rode being included in its unit. Mr Rode was hired as a Straw  
Boss for the Auger Bore Support Crew 3, which also comprised a foreman, three operators  
(placed by the Board Officer into the OEs’ unit) and three labourers (placed by the Officer into  
the Labourers’ unit). The OEs argue Mr Rode should be excluded because the evidence does  
not show any work taking place that demonstrates he was functioning as an operating engineer.  
[100] Based on the evidence, we do not agree the work taking place at the relevant time was  
devoid of operating engineer work. On January 7th, the timesheet indicates hydrovac work was  
taking place which involved “2 hydrovac trucks, 2 operators, 2 labs”. On January 8th, hydrovac  
work continued at more locations and the timesheet for that day indicates an excavator and a  
side boom were added to the crew’s equipment list, with the foreman noting “boom hauled to  
site and assembled”, the assembly of which we view as operating engineer work. On January  
9th, the crew was placing matts, stringing out bore pipe, and clearing snow from the right-of-way,  
work that has both labouring and operating engineer characteristics to it, given the presence,  
and we would expect use, of the excavator and the side boom. The crew was off on January  
10th, and on the 11th it is recorded as finishing hydrovac work on a slot trench, putting in an air  
ramp, and loading up snow and hauling it to a laydown area, with the foreman noting there were  
Classification: Public  
24  
“2 hydrovac trucks with 4 hands”. On January 12th, excavation work on a bell hole commenced,  
access ramps were built at two locations, and trench boxes and bore equipment were unloaded  
at the laydown area.  
[101] In our view, the evidence of the work performed by this Auger Bore Support Crew 3 in  
the relevant period reveals a mix of labouring and operating engineer functions. Not  
surprisingly, their work is similar in nature to the work performed by Mason Groves’ Auger Bore  
Support Crew 4, and in that case we found Mr Groves was appropriately placed into the  
Labourers’ unit, an outcome advocated for by the Labourers. The Labourers have made no  
specific claim to Mr Rode and rely on a general argument there is insufficient evidence to move  
him into another unit. While we note the work performed by his crew may have had a touch  
more operating engineer character to it, in the end we are left with the same overall dynamic as  
with Mr Groves’ crew, namely an evenly split crew of operating engineers and labourers  
performing a mix of duties associated with those two trades. We are without any credible basis  
to treat Mr Rode differently from Mr Groves on this evidence and view him as best situated in  
the Labourers’ unit.  
Brady Smith  
[102] Brady Smith was the Straw Boss on the Auger Bore Support Crew 1. The OEs object to  
Mr Smith’s inclusion in their unit, asserting the lack of heavy duty equipment assigned to the  
crew and the lack of evidence that operating engineers work was taking place justifies removing  
him from the OEs unit.  
[103] Mr Smith’s crew, like the other auger bore support teams previously discussed, was  
made up of operators and labourers, albeit in this crew there were three operators to one  
labourer. Despite that, the description on the timesheets of the work taking place in the relevant  
period reveals the same mix of labouring and operating engineer work, such as the loading and  
unloading of pipe, skids, trench boxes and other items, putting up fencing, some hydrovac work,  
and some cutting of materials, along with an assortment of assembly tasks. On balance, there  
is nothing in this evidence that would suggest more operating engineer work was being done  
than labouring work. In this regard, there is little to truly distinguish this crew’s overall work  
functions in the relevant period from the other auger bore support crews, and as that mix of  
work justified placing the Straw Boss for each of the previous auger bore support crew into the  
Labourers’ unit, we are satisfied it is sensible and consistent to place Mr Smith into the  
Labourers’ unit as well.  
Rocky Schultz  
[104] Rocky Schultz was a Straw Boss for the HDD Support Crew 1. The OEs object to his  
inclusion in its unit, arguing the crew was not performing bargaining unit work around the date of  
the application. The Labourers argue Mr Schultz should be included in its unit on the basis his  
prime function was likely the kind of work his crew was mostly performing, which Mr Walker  
opined in his testimony was largely labourer work.  
[105] “HDD” stands for Horizontal Directional Drilling, which Mr Walker described as work  
involving drilling rigs that bore holes under rivers or roadways. Mr Walker explained there is not  
much operator engineer work involved in the horizontal drilling activities, with perhaps an  
operator for the drill and one working an excavator, with the rest of the crew predominantly  
labourers. Mr Walker acknowledged he had not observed any of the work taking place at the  
Employer’s locations.  
Classification: Public  
25  
[106] The HDD Support Crew 1 on the ATCO project included a foreman, four employees  
hired as operators and three as specialized labourers, positions that align with their placement  
by the Board Officer into the bargaining units of the OEs and Labourers. The timesheets in  
evidence for the relevant period indicate the crew was engaged in measuring and grading a  
pad, hauling lights and skids to site, mobilizing in c-cans, bales, matts and other supplies, and  
setting up the c-cans and bales for sound mitigation, which Mr Pentelichuk testified was  
necessary at some locations because of the proximity of the work site to residences. The work  
on January 8th is described by the foreman on the timesheet as “mob in c-cans and unload 10-  
40’, 16-20’, mob in bales 36 in total, off load and stock pile, shoot in final grace on pad, mark c-  
can positon, clean mud off SF 4A”. On January 9th, the work on the sound barrier continued,  
January 10th was a day off, while on January 11th, the Labourersapplication date, the foreman  
noted the crew worked “on mob in, c-cans, off load with clay and loader, stack 4-40’ and 20-20’  
c-cans on second level of sound wall. Assist in yard with trench box load and unload. Work on  
sweeping SF 4A access, clean mud off of road way”. On January 12th, very similar type of  
activities took place. On none of the timesheets is any heavy duty equipment listed.  
[107] In our view, the work taking place by the HDD Support Crew 1 is largely of a labouring  
nature, and to the extent operating engineer work was occurring it does not appear to be the  
predominant activity. Mr Schultz as the Straw Boss for this crew is better placed in the  
Labourers’ unit to reflect that situation.  
Hunter St. Louis  
[108] There was another HDD Support Crew (Crew 2) working at the ATCO project site and  
Hunter St. Louis was its Straw Boss. The OEs object to Mr St. Louis’ placement into its unit on  
the same basis it objected to Mr Schultz. The Labourers make no specific claim to Mr St. Louis.  
[109] The HDD Support Crew 2 included three operators and two specialized labourers. The  
work of this crew largely mirrors the work being done by Mr Schultz’s crew, with the timesheets  
noting it was moving in equipment, setting up prep areas, and unloading, stacking, and prepping  
for noise barriers. On January 7th, the foreman wrote: “unload, stack and prep for noise barrier  
at Tuscany. Used yard loader to offload unit ??”. With respect to this comment, Mr Pentelichuk  
testified the loader may have been a short-term loan from another crew and its cost code  
charge would remain with that crew’s foreman. On January 8th, the foreman wrote: “weld on c-  
cans, wait for loader, build skid poles and table tops for welding”. No heavy duty equipment is  
listed with this crew until January 9th, when a rock truck and excavator were added to the  
timesheet list, with the work recorded for that day as “c-cans, skids, move dirt for pipe; 2 ops, 2  
labs, straw for 3 hours”. January 10th was a day off for the crew. On January 11th another  
loader was added to the equipment list with the work described as “stack and move c-cans,  
move and stuff tiny bales, skid up c-cans”. On January 12th, the rock truck was removed from  
the equipment list on the timesheet and the foreman recorded the following activities: “fill void  
under c-cans with hay bales, build skid piles under c-cans, move clay for slope at straight cut  
wall, snow fence across back of c-cans (ped traffic)”.  
[110] On balance, this evidence indicates a majority of the activities leading up to and  
including January 8th do not constitute the work of operating engineers, particularly given the  
absence of heavy duty equipment until January 9th. At that point, it is reasonable to presume  
the excavator and loader were in operation assisting with the tasks requiring the movement of  
heavier items, but overall the activities strike us as predominantly that of the Labourers. To the  
extent a couple of the operators were likely occupied running the excavator and loader,  
Classification: Public  
26  
including a yard loader on loan from another crew that was used on January 7th, in our view that  
is not enough to affect the overall labouring thrust of the crew’s work. While the Labourers have  
made no claim to Mr St. Louis, and rely on their general argument there is insufficient evidence  
to move him into its unit, we find there is little to distinguish Mr Schultz’s crew from Mr St. Louis’  
crew, and in the circumstances it is appropriate to remove Mr St. Louis from the OEs’ unit and  
place him in the Labourers’ unit, given his supervisory role was predominantly in regard to  
labouring functions.  
Jackson Thompson  
[111] Of the Straw Bosses objected to by the OEs that leaves Jackson Thompson. The Board  
Officer included him in the OEs’ unit. Mr Thompson was a part of the Strip & Grade crew, which  
included three labourers (one specialized, two general), and 11 operators, positions that  
mirrored their bargaining unit placements by the Board Officer. Also of note, the equipment list  
for this crew is flush with heavy duty equipment. The timesheets in the relevant period reveal a  
daily count of seven excavators, four dozers, two crawlers, and a rock truck, although on  
January 8th the two crawlers and the rock truck were not charged out and one of the excavators  
was only charged out for half the day. The timesheets also reveal the crew was heavily  
involved in the actual stripping and grading of right-of-ways and building access ramps, along  
with plowing snow, stacking and piling trees, and grading laydown areas. When asked about Mr  
Thompson, Mr Pentelichuk testified he and the Board Officer “would have talked about his prime  
function as supervising operators, so we had a discussion about it”.  
[112] In its submission, the OEs acknowledge Mr Thompson is part of a crew performing  
mostly operating engineer work but argue he should be excluded from its unit because Straws  
are not part of the OEs’ bargaining unit under its Mainline Agreement. With no evidence to  
show he was performing the prime functions of an operating engineer, he should be excluded  
because he was supervising operators and on that basis he is out-of-scope on registration.  
[113] Mr Thompson’s situation is no doubt problematic. He was hired as a Straw Boss and on  
the evidence before the Board it is reasonable to conclude his primary task was supervising the  
many operating engineers on the Strip & Grade crew. If we followed our line of analysis with the  
other Straw Bosses, that would mean placing him into the OEs’ unit, an outcome that the OEs  
oppose as he would be excluded under registration. Mr Campbell testified the OEs have no  
right to insist on dispatching Straw Bosses of their choosing and the OEs’ Mainline Agreement  
has for decades been interpreted as excluding Straw Bosses from the unit. We were without  
any countervailing evidence on this point.  
[114] For practical reasons, we find the best course of action on these particular facts is to  
exclude Mr Thompson from the OEs’ unit. In these circumstances, we see little utility in keeping  
him in the OEs’ unit, and affecting the support count and the vote itself, when he would  
ultimately be excluded by operation of the mainline pipeline agreement should the OEs’  
application succeed. The evidence regarding the exclusion of Straw Bosses under the OEs  
Mainline Agreement was uncontested and the Employer did not really mount much of argument  
against leaving an employee out on this basis. We are emboldened to make this decision  
because of Mr Pentelichuk’s clear testimony that he and the Board Officer discussed Mr  
Thompson’s situation and he was considered to be supervising operating engineer work, and  
also by the fact that there was no evidence Mr Thompson was performing the prime functions of  
an operating engineer himself in the relevant period. We hasten to add if we had had any  
evidence to that effect we would have left Mr Thompson in the OEs’ unit despite his status as a  
Straw Boss.  
Classification: Public  
27  
Not OEs’ Bargaining Unit Work - ATCO  
[115] The next series of objections from the OEs concern employees that it says were  
erroneously placed into the OEs’ unit when the timesheets from the relevant period do not  
disclose any OEs’ work was taking place in the relevant period. We first address the employees  
working at the ATCO Project.  
James Burke, Glenn Stefanich, and Steve Mitchell  
[116] Three of these employees are James Burke, Glenn Stefanich, and Steve Mitchell. They  
were the three listed operators on the HDD Support Crew 2, for which Mr St. Louis was the  
Straw Boss and whose situation we discussed previously, concluding the predominant work  
undertaken by the HDD Support Crew 2 in the relevant period appeared to be of the labouring  
variety. We noted however in that analysis that there was some heavy duty equipment in  
operation that would require operators, and the timesheets for that crew disclose this type of  
work appeared to increase from January 9th onwards. Mr Pentelichuk testified it did “look  
strange” that no heavy duty equipment was listed on the January 7th timesheet. He also noted,  
when asked about whether there was third party contractors on site doing the HDD work, that  
even if there had been, the Employer would have been supplying the operators “to do the pads,  
we support the drilling process”. Further, the OEs’ candidly acknowledged in their submission  
that the timesheets may not be 100% accurate regarding the equipment listings.  
[117] In our view, while it was clear from the evidence the majority of the work being  
supervised by Mr St. Louis as the Straw Boss on the HDD Support Crew 2 was labouring work,  
there were indicators that operating engineer work was taking place in that period of time. The  
evidence that is before the Board fails to convince us no operating engineer work was occurring  
around the date of the application and we have no information to establish that Messrs Burke,  
Stefanich, and Mitchell, as the listed operators, were not involved in it or any such involvement  
by them was inconsequential. Indeed, the work undertaken on the 9th had the excavator  
charged out for eight hours. On all of this evidence, we find the interests of these three  
employees are legitimately aligned with the OEs and we are not inclined to remove them from  
the OEs’ unit.  
Alex Harlow, Mark Cerkowniak, and Ian Pitt-Taylor  
[118] The OEs similarly filed objections to the inclusion in its unit of the listed operators on the  
HDD Support Crew 1, namely Alex Harlow, Mark Cerkowniak, and Ian Pitt-Taylor, on the basis  
the January 8th timesheet does not list any heavy duty equipment nor describe operating  
engineer work.  
[119] For reasons unconnected to prime function, the Employer and the OEs agreed that Mr  
Pitt-Taylor should be excluded from the unit.  
[120] With respect to Mr Cerkowniak, the Employer submitted somewhat indifferently that he  
was better suited in the Labourers’ unit. The Labourers argue on a balance of probabilities Mr  
Cerkowniak should stay in the OEs’ unit, as he was hired as an operator, paid well above the  
rate paid to labourers on the project, and the January 11th timesheet indicates there was  
operating engineer work taking place.  
Classification: Public  
28  
[121] We find the evidence favours keeping Mr Cerkowniak and Mr Harlow in the OEs’ unit.  
Both were paid at hourly wage rates ($43 and $53, respectively) far above the labourer rate,  
which Mr Pentelichuk stated typically did not exceed $35/hour. Further, our assessment is not  
restricted to looking solely at the activities taking place on the January 8th application date, and  
in the period around January 8th there are indications on the timesheets that operating engineer  
work was likely taking place, including surveying work on the January 6th (“measure pad, work  
with grader level and square up corners); operating a loader to haul matts and flume pipe on the  
7th; more pad work on the 8th (“shoot in final grade on pad”), and more loader work on the 11th.  
While there is no definitive evidence that Mr Cerkowniak and Mr Harlow were specifically doing  
this work, we think the materials we do have are sufficient to establish the HDD Support Crew 1,  
while predominantly engaged in labouring work, had some operating engineer work going on in  
the relevant period, which should come as no surprise in multi-disciplinary crews on pipeline  
projects. This evidence is insufficient to rebut the Board Officer’s placement of these two  
individuals into the OEs’ unit.  
Chris Cherdarchuk and Dale Heppner  
[122] The OEs object to the inclusion of Chris Cherdarchuk and Dale Heppner in its unit. Both  
were hired as operators at hourly pay rates of $53/hour and $43/hour, respectively. They were  
part of the Stove Pipe Crew 2, which did not commence work duties until the OEs’ application  
date of January 8th. The OEs point to the January 8th timesheet for this crew to argue it does  
not describe operating engineer work, nor is there any heavy duty equipment listed for that day,  
and for those reasons they should be removed from its unit.  
[123] The foreman’s comments on the timesheet for January 8th state: “orientation for crew; go  
over JSA’s & paperwork; help out with yard, general cleanup; rig up trucks with warehouse back  
orders; get compressors running and both sets of internal clamps”. On the 9th, a side boom was  
added to the equipment list and the foreman noted the following activities: “mounted air  
compressor to 1 tonne crew truck; loaded trailer full of skids and took to Rd. 5 for welding; broke  
down boom @ yard and moved to Rd. 5; worked with Mike M. to cross hoe and spot rock truck  
for snow removal”. The side boom was assigned to the third operator on this crew (Chris  
McCord) and all three operators were noted as on stand-by, presumably meaning they were not  
working on the 9th. The 10th was a day off. On January 11th, the foreman’s comments indicate:  
“graded out R.O.W. for drag sections; strung and set up bore sections; put 583 boom together;  
made seven welds”.  
[124] Carefully considered, we do not think the OEs’ have met their burden to tender  
sufficiently cogent evidence to rebut the Board Officer’s placement of Mr Cherdarchuk and Mr  
Heppner in the OEs’ unit. While the description of work taking place on January 8th does not  
indicate any appreciable operating engineer work was taking place, this was their first day on  
the job. While they did not work on January 9th and 10th, when they next strapped on their work  
boots on January 11th, the timesheets indicate operating engineer work was underway and  
heavy duty equipment was in use. As was the case for Michael Froude and James Hopkins  
(discussed at paragraphs 70 - 71, and who were on the same crew as these two), we have no  
evidence of Employer gerrymandering and Mr Cherdarchuk and Mr Heppner were present in  
the workplace on the date of the OEs’ application. Overall, the evidence before us does not  
support their removal from the OEs’ unit.  
Classification: Public  
29  
Henry Cardinal Jr.  
[125] The OEs and the Labourers challenge the inclusion of Henry Cardinal Jr. in the OEs’  
unit, with the Labourers claiming him for their own unit. Mr Cardinal was part of the Bending &  
Setup crew discussed earlier in the context of Mr Ewald’s situation as a Straw Boss on that  
crew. Our conclusions were this crew was predominantly engaged in labouring work while  
recognizing there was likely also some operating engineer work taking place, mostly related to  
the loading and off-loading of pipe and other large items on certain days.  
[126] The OEs assert there is a lack of heavy duty equipment and no operating engineer work  
listed on the January 8th timesheet to justify keeping him in its unit. The Labourers state the  
hire-on documentation shows Mr Cardinal was initially hired as a labourer at a wage rate  
($41/hour) in excess of the top-end for labourers working for the Employer ($35/hour), and then  
his classification was soon after changed to operator level 1. The Labourers assert it is  
probable that his classification was changed to align with the Employer’s pay scales, not to  
reflect his prime function duties. Mr Pentelichuk acknowledged that was a possible explanation  
for the change in classification but he could not confirm it. The Labourers further assert this  
crew was primarily engaged in labouring tasks and it is reasonable to assume Mr Cardinal was  
involved in that capacity.  
[127] We discussed the activities of the Bending & Setup crew in detail above (at paragraphs  
82 - 84), wherein we determined this crew was predominantly engaged in labouring duties  
throughout the relevant periods of the OEs’ application and that of the Labourers, although it  
was noted the movement and bending of pipe would quite likely have involved operating  
engineer work, and the January 7th timesheet indicates crew members “set-up a tractor, put  
boom on side-boom”, which we consider the type of service work operating engineers can be  
involved in. On or around the date of the OEs’ application, January 8th, the timesheets note the  
unloading of elbow spools and the loading of pipe onto trailers. Mr Pentelichuk, when asked  
about this, testified it would be reasonable to expect a side boom was available to accomplish  
those tasks, despite none being formally recorded on the timesheets. On the Labourers’  
application date, January 11th, the timesheet indicates the crew was bending pipe, and while not  
listed in the equipment columns, the foreman notes a bending machine was in operation that  
day before it broke. In our view, an operator would have most likely been needed to assist with  
that work. In the absence of direct evidence about what Mr Cardinal was specifically doing on  
these days, we find it reasonable on this evidence to conclude on a balance of probabilities that  
he was performing some operating engineer tasks and to a degree sufficient to keep him in the  
OEs’ unit.  
Shawn Cummings  
[128] The OEs’ object to the placement of Shawn Cummings in its unit. The Labourers argue  
Mr Cummings should be placed into its unit. Mr Cummings was hired as an operator for the  
Hydrotest crew. The only other person on the crew was a foreman. The OEs argue there is no  
heavy duty equipment listed on the timesheets for this crew and no operating engineer work  
was taking place in the relevant period. The Labourers argue the tasks undertaken by the crew  
describe labouring work.  
[129] In our view, the evidence supports his removal from the OEs’ unit and placement into the  
Labourers’ unit. The foreman’s comments on the timesheets on or around the date of OEs’  
application consistently describe “rigging up” for the upcoming hydro-testing. The January 7th  
timesheet provides more detail indicating the two person crew was “building tool boxes, paint  
Classification: Public  
30  
boxes and tool racks”. The January 11th timesheet also indicates the crew was rigging up for  
the test. Mr Walker said the work described on the timesheets is “basically out-fitting the trucks  
for the job”, which he opined is done by labourers. Mr Walker’s testimony on this subject was  
uncontested. The January 11th timesheet mentions “spot loader and hoe at Rd #4”, but such  
spotting is not necessarily operating engineer work. Overall, we are satisfied the crew was  
performing general labouring duties not covered in the other trade jurisdictions and accordingly  
Mr Cummings should be removed from the OEs’ unit and placed instead with the Labourers.  
Clayton Johnson, Stewart Robertson, Todd Robertson, and Troy Langley  
[130] The OEs’ remaining objections on the ins and outs as relating to the ATCO project  
concern four individuals: Clayton Johnson, Troy Langley, Stewart Robertson, and Todd  
Robertson, all of whom were also persons of interest for the Teamsters. The OEs argue all four  
should be removed from the OEs’ unit as they are performing the work of the Teamsters, a  
result the Teamsters advocate for as well.  
[131] Clayton Johnson, Stewart Robertson, and Todd Robertson were part of the Yard &  
Warehouse Crew on the ATCO project. On the timesheets for this crew, Mr Johnson and  
Stewart Robertson are listed as level 1 operators, while Todd Robertson is listed as a level 2  
operator.  
[132] When questioned about the jurisdictional lines between the building trade unions in the  
pipeline construction sector, Mr Pentelichuk acknowledged he had no prior experience in the  
unionized pipeline industry and until this hearing he did not have any real appreciation for the  
distinctions between the work performed by the various trades in this sector. Mr Pentelichuk  
freely admitted that his original information to the Board Officer was made on the basis a person  
hired and working as an “operator”, including functioning as a driver, should be put into the OEs’  
unit, and otherwise labourers would be a “catch-all” for those working at the warehouse and  
yard. Mr Campbell, relying on his industry expertise, discussed the work of the various crews  
on a pipeline project. Mr Campbell indicated a crew at a yard and warehouse is primarily  
engaged in the receiving, cataloguing, storing and shipping of equipment and supplies required  
for the project. Crews will also marshal at the yard for transportation to the work site. Mr  
Campbell testified such activities undertaken in the yard are the work of the Teamsters,  
including when large heavy duty equipment, such as a loader, is operated within the confines of  
the yard. Any driving related to the transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies to the  
site is generally the work of the Teamsters, including fuel delivery. The Employer did not  
contest any of these general observations regarding the trade jurisdictional lines.  
[133] With respect to Stewart Robertson, the documentation confirms he was hired as a truck  
driver/operator at $41/hour and he is listed on the timesheets and Daily Tailgate meeting forms  
for the Yard & Warehouse crew throughout the relevant period. Mr Pentelichuk testified he  
believed Stewart Robertson was working as a fuel truck driver and he may have operated a  
loader or skid steer in the yard in support of the crew’s activities in the yard. These same  
timesheets indicate the fueling of equipment was, as one might expect, a regular activity.  
Based on the evidence before the Board and Mr Pentelichuk’s general acquiescence to the  
jurisdictional claims of the Teamsters, which we view as mostly aligned with the Board’s policies  
for pipeline construction, we have no hesitation removing Stewart Robertson from the OEs’ unit  
and placing him in the Teamsters’ unit.  
[134] The analysis and outcome is essentially the same for Todd Robertson. He was hired as  
a swamper/fuel truck, at a slightly lower hourly rate than Stewart Robertson. Todd Robertson’s  
Classification: Public  
31  
name is consistently noted immediately beside the single axel fuel truck listed in the equipment  
columns for the Yard & Warehouse Crew. The January 12th timesheet specifically indicates one  
of the activities that day was “fueling equipment”. Mr Pentelichuk also indicated Todd  
Robertson may have operated a loader or a skid steer in the yard. We are satisfied on this  
evidence that Todd Robertson is most appropriately placed in the Teamsters’ unit.  
[135] Clayton Johnson’s situation is rather straight-forward. He and Tanner Hallum were  
named by the Employer in response to the Board’s production directive to disclose any  
employee named or described as Teamster, Warehouse person, or Truck driver in the employ  
of the Employer who would fall within the requested bargaining unit (worked within 14 days prior  
to the application and within 14 days after the application) whose name was not disclosed to the  
Board Officer. Mr Hallum is addressed later under the Teamsters remaining objections. With  
respect to Mr Johnson, he was identified by the Employer as a loader operator. When  
questioned about this information, Mr Pentelichuk said he had no reason to question the  
information his team subsequently provided to the Teamsters. This evidence is sufficient to  
rebut the Board Officer’s placement of Mr Johnson and he should be placed in the Teamsters’  
unit instead.  
[136] If Mr Johnston’s situation was straight forward, Troy Langley’s is anything but. Mr  
Langley was hired as and entered into the Employer’s payroll system as a picker operator. He  
appears on the timesheets as the sole operator on the Coating Crew. The Coating Crew was  
previously discussed when considering Travis Dubeau’s situation as a Straw Boss of that crew  
(at paragraphs 79 - 81). Our analysis of that crew indicated it was predominantly engaged in  
labouring tasks up to January 11th, largely related to setting up trucks and equipment for the  
coating work, which became the predominant activity of the crew from the 12th onwards.  
[137] The Board Officer placed Mr Langley into the OEs’ unit. Both the OEs and the  
Teamsters argue Mr Langley belongs in the Teamsters’ unit, primarily because he was hired as  
a picker truck driver, the Daily Tailgate Meeting records confirm he was a consistent member of  
the Coating Crew and, according to Mr Campbell and Mr Walker, such crews are almost entirely  
comprised of labourers save and except for any driver who would customarily be placed into the  
Teamsters unit under its Mainline Pipeline Agreement.  
[138] Our review of the evidence does not paint such a clear picture of where Mr Langley  
should be placed.  
[139] Mr Langley’s Temporary Employee Project Hire Package records his position as both  
“operator” and “picker operator”. We have no direct evidence he was functioning as a driver in  
the first part of January 2020, despite him being the sole operator on that crew through to early  
February 2020.  
[140] The timesheets for the Coating Crew leading up to the OEs’ application date of January  
8th through to the Teamsters’ application on January 12th indicate the crew was predominantly  
busy attending coating seminars and setting up the trucks and equipment that would be used in  
the coating work (i.e. the sand-blasting, coating, repairing and jeeping of welds and other parts  
of the pipe) that commenced in earnest on January 13th. On January 8th and 11th (the crew was  
off on the 10th and the 11th), there is specific mention in the Daily Tailgate Meeting forms of  
finishing the set-up of the “picker/coil truck”. The January 12th form also mentions “working on  
the trucks”. When cross-referenced with the equipment listings on the daily timesheets from this  
period, there is no specific listing for a picker/coil truck, although the sheets do refer to a “single  
axle coating unit” with a unit number of “COATHC20 – 20” Tesi Heating Coil”. The timesheets  
Classification: Public  
32  
for both the Yard & Warehouse Crew and the Coating Crew detail the transfer of four F550  
trucks from the Yard & Warehouse Crew to the Coating Crew, two of which were “Mix” trucks  
and two that were “Blast” trucks. The only specific mention of a picker truck assigned to the  
Coating Crew appears on a February 1st timesheet, but we have been pointed to no evidence  
regarding when this picker truck was first added to the Coating Crew. When asked about Mr  
Langley and his position as a picker operator, Mr Pentelichuk said a picker operator does lifts  
using a F550 with a flatbed crane up to a unit as large as a 30 ton picker truck. While Mr  
Pentelichuk could not confirm exactly what Mr Langley was doing in the relevant period, he  
agreed it would make the most sense for the Employer to use him in a way that gets the most of  
his operator level 2 position and the higher wage rate he was being paid compared to the  
labourers on the crew. Despite what we might presume is a situation where at least one of  
these F550 trucks was equipped with a picker arm and the heating coil was set up on to a single  
axle trailer attached to that truck, we have no hard evidence to that effect. We also are without  
any evidence to establish Mr Langley was assigned to or otherwise operating any of these  
trucks in the relevant period.  
[141] Further muddying the waters is the evidence we received from the industry experts, Mr  
Campbell and Mr Walker. Mr Campbell explained that the operator of a single use picker truck  
(a picker truck that has been assigned to a crew) would traditionally fall under the jurisdiction of  
the OEs, while an operator of a dual use picker truck (one that is assigned to the yard and  
functions in a dual role of transporting materials between the yard and field but also as a picker  
in the field) may fall under the jurisdiction of the OEs or the Teamsters, depending on the  
frequency of its use. We were pointed to no evidence to establish a picker truck was  
permanently assigned to the Yard & Warehouse. Mr Campbell also testified that an induction  
heating coil is hoisted by an operating engineer using a side boom or picker truck, the heating  
coil operation is done by an operating engineer, and any hoisting done during jeeping work  
would be done by an operating engineer, while the driving of a sand-blasting truck (where there  
is no hoisting) is done by a Teamster. Mr Walker testified that on sand-blasting/coating crews  
almost all the work is that of the Labourers, and the only position not typically within its  
jurisdiction is “the guy on the picker truck”.  
[142] All of this evidence, which provides no clear path forward regarding Mr Langley, would  
not have been needed if Mr Langley, or his supervisor, had been called to give evidence  
regarding his work activities in the first two weeks of January 2020. That did not happen, and  
the Board has been left with a morass of evidence in purported support of removing Mr Langley  
from the OEs’ unit and placing him in with the Teamsters. Carefully considered however, we  
think the evidence is not sufficiently clear and robust enough to rebut the Board Officer’s  
placement of Mr Langley in the OEs’ unit.  
[143] In the period of January 5th to 12th, the best that can be said is this crew was involved in  
the setting up of blasting and mixing trucks, and it would appear a picker/coil truck, which may  
or may not have been a different vehicle from the blasting and mixing trucks. Nevertheless, in  
the absence of specific evidence regarding what work was being done on the picker/coil truck,  
and by who, there is little here to say this work is anything different from the general labouring  
work this crew was engaged in as previously established when considering Mr Dubeau’s  
situation.  
[144] However, placing Mr Langley in with the Labourers strikes us wholly inconsistent with  
what he was hired for, and what can be easily presumed were his predominant activities in the  
period from the 12th onwards, which we think can be safely described as driving and operating  
the trucks attached to the Coating Crew. Carefully weighed, and informed by the evidence  
Classification: Public  
33  
provided by Mr Campbell and Mr Walker, we think there is a higher probability he was  
functioning as an Operating Engineer than a Teamster. Even if not operating one of the F550  
trucks, at some point an actual “Picker 5-10 ton TC10 Picker Truck Peterbilt” was assigned to  
the Coating Crew. Combined with Mr Langley’s sole operator status on that crew, it is  
reasonable to infer he was functioning as he was hired to be, a picker operator on trucks  
assigned to the Coating crew. By our understanding of the evidence, including the type of  
trucks and equipment in use, that puts him more comfortably in with the OEs than it does the  
Teamsters. Mr Langley shall remain with the OEs’ unit for the purposes of these applications.  
Not OEs’ Bargaining Unit Work - Brewster  
[145] The OEs’ remaining objections on the ins and outs concern six employees at the  
Brewster project: Zachary Booth, Dave Oesch, David Reinhart, Sean Schindel, Doug Romuld,  
and Joshua Moore.  
[146] The general evidence regarding the Brewster project indicated it was in the preliminary  
stages around the time of the certification applications, as the Employer was waiting for  
approvals to proceed with the pipeline work, which would not be finalized until February 2020.  
A five-acre yard site was being set up and, according to Mr Pentelichuk, the majority of the work  
for Brewster in the first few weeks of January 2020 was “guys working in the yard, some would  
have been doing site visits, to assess accessing the right-of-way, ATV’ing to look at water  
courses, checking out terrain, and grade and environmental planning”.  
Zachary Booth  
[147] The OEs claim Zachary Booth was erroneously included in its unit. He was hired as an  
operator as part of the Trucking/Equipment crew. The timesheets and the payroll records  
confirm he worked on January 5th but then did not work again until January 13th. The timesheet  
for the 5th does not disclose in any way what he and the crew were doing that day, nor do the  
timesheets for the 5th through to the 12th indicate anything about what it was doing in his  
absence. And we have no documents that might inform on what the crew was doing following  
the 12th, when Mr Booth returned to work. Of note, the equipment listed for this crew is  
exceptionally light, with only two pickup trucks assigned to the crew until a grader is added on  
January 7th, along with another operator, Sean Schindel, whose situation we discuss specifically  
below. When asked what this crew might be doing in this period, Mr Pentelichuk indicted a lot  
of “stuff is brought in to support miscellaneous activities before the real work on the pipeline  
commences”.  
[148] Our difficulty in this case, and what makes this whole situation somewhat unusual, is the  
Board Officer’s placement of Mr Booth, like almost all of the other objected-to employees, was  
done without any supporting documentary records from the Employer’s payroll and personnel  
files, and merely on the Employer’s recommendation that Mr Booth be placed with the operators  
because he was hired as an operator. With the benefit of some of those additional records now  
before us, and our assessment of them, we are not satisfied there is a sufficient evidentiary  
basis to move Mr Booth from the OEs’ unit. While he did not work in the period January 6th to  
12th, he was part of the Trucking/Equipment crew and he worked in the 14-day periods before  
and after the OEs’ application date. The name of his crew alone supports an alignment with the  
OEs and he was indeed hired to function as an operator. Of note, another operator and a  
grader were added to the crew on January 7th and according to the timesheets both were in  
regular use from that point onwards. Mr Pentelichuk’s view about the work the crew was doing  
in this period, while likely predominantly of a labouring flavour, indicates it could have had some  
Classification: Public  
34  
operating engineer characteristics to it, which is supported by the addition and use of the  
second operator and the grader. All in all, we see Mr Booth’s interests remaining with the OEs’  
on this evidence, an outcome we believe is buttressed by our analysis of Mr Schindel’s  
situation, which we address next.  
Sean Schindel  
[149] As mentioned, Sean Schindel was hired on as an operator (noted elsewhere on the hire-  
on forms as a “utility operator”) and added to the Trucking/Equipment crew on January 7th. On  
the same day, a grader was added to the crew’s equipment list. When asked about the January  
8th timesheet for this crew, showing both Mr Schindel with 11 hours worked and the grader  
charged out for 10 hours, Mr Pentleichuk said it could be assumed Mr Schindel was operating  
that piece of equipment, but he could not confirm it. He also said at that point in the project, if  
the grader was in use, it would have been clearing snow, creating access roads, and doing road  
maintenance, tasks that we think are squarely operating engineer work. The timesheets reveal  
that from January 7th through to January 12th (save for the 10th, a day off), Mr Schindel and the  
grader were charged out for entire days. In our view, this is not evidence that rebuts the Board  
Officer’s placement of Mr Schindel in the OE’s unit, and it is appropriate he remain there for  
these applications.  
Dave Oesch  
[150] Dave Oesch was hired as an “equipment operator” on January 3rd and placed on the  
Environmental Utility crew. He was included in the OEs’ unit by the Board Officer, a placement  
the OEs say cannot be justified given the preliminary stage of the Brewster project and the lack  
of evidence any operating engineer work was occurring at the time.  
[151] The Environmental Utility crew was, by January 7th, staffed with a foreman, a Straw Boss  
(placed by the Board Officer into the Labourers’ unit), a labourer (also placed into the Labourers’  
unit) and Mr Oesch. The timesheets in the period up to January 12th note only two pick-up  
trucks on the equipment listings, with no indication the crew had been assigned any heavy duty  
equipment. There are no foreman comments on the timesheets in this period to indicate what  
the crew was doing. When asked about the fact there were only two pick-up trucks listed with  
the crew, Mr Pentelichuk said “it was early in the project, and it would not be fully stocked up”,  
and when pressed, he stated he would be comfortable that the equipment listed on the  
timesheets “would mostly capture” what the crew had. Regarding the general nature of the  
work this crew would have been performing at the time, Mr Pentelichuk said they would have  
been signing up environmental zones such as water courses and installing fencing.  
[152] We have next to nothing in the evidence before us that supports Mr Oesch remaining in  
the OEs’ unit. There is no heavy equipment assigned to or even remotely connected to this  
crew in the relevant period. The work the crew was most likely engaged in, as described by Mr  
Pentelichuk, strikes us as strongly of the labouring variety, which is congruent with the fact a  
Straw Boss and a labourer on the crew were placed into the Labourers’ unit without objection.  
While the OEs contend there is no obligation on the part of the Board to place Mr Oesch into  
one of the other trade units, we find there is sufficient evidence before us to remove him from  
the OEs’ unit and place him into the Labourers’ unit. We do so cognizant of his high rate of pay  
($47/hour), which would suggest he was hired to operate heavy duty equipment at some point;  
importantly however, there is no evidence that we have been made aware of that would indicate  
operating heavy equipment came to be his predominant work activity as the month unfolded. In  
Classification: Public  
35  
the absence of that, we are satisfied it is appropriate to place him in the Labourers’ unit for the  
purposes of these applications.  
Doug Romuld and Dave Reinhart  
[153] The next two employees objected to by the OEs are Doug Romuld and David Reinhart,  
who were part of the Mechanics Crew at the Brewster project.  
[154] The first page of Mr Romuld’s Employer’s Subcontractor Project Hire Package records  
his position as a Master Mechanic and on the second page as a “H.D. Mechanic”, which we  
take to mean heavy duty mechanic. On the Employer’s timesheets in the relevant period, he is  
listed as a mechanic.  
[155] The front page of Mr Reinhart’s hire-on package identifies his position as “Fuel Truck”  
and on the fourth page it states “Master Mechanic”. In the payroll system he is entered as a  
mechanic, while on the timesheets he is listed as a truck driver.  
[156] On the timesheets referred to us by the OEs for the Mechanics Crew, covering the  
period January 5th to 12th, Mr Romuld and Mr Reinhart were the only members listed on the  
crew.  
[157] Coming in to the hearing, the OEs had objected to Mr Reinhart’s inclusion in its unit,  
asserting amongst other things that his work in the relevant period indicated he belonged in the  
Teamsters’ unit, an outcome argued for as well by the Employer. Prior to closing arguments,  
the Teamsters conceded he belonged in their unit, as the documentary and testimonial  
evidence showed that while he may have performed mechanic duties early on, he was hired for  
the purpose of driving a fuel truck, he had transitioned into that role by the time of the  
Teamster’s application on January 12th, and there was no dispute such work belongs to the  
Teamsters. We direct Mr Reinhart be put into the Teamsters’ unit.  
[158] In contrast, Mr Romuld’s situation is not nearly as straight-forward to decipher. The OEs  
claim he should be excluded from their list as the Brewster project was at a preliminary stage,  
there was no operating engineer work taking place at the time, and he was functioning as a  
foreman or a master mechanic and that justifies his exclusion as a manager.  
[159] The timesheets for the Mechanics Crew for the period leading up to the OEs’ application  
date of January 8th, indicate that the crew was working on quads and the steamer truck, setting  
up fuel trucks, fueling light plants and generators, and setting up the shop. On the 8th, no  
comments are recorded. On the 9th, the timesheets indicate the crew assembled a side boom  
and dropped fuel tanks. No comments are recorded for the 10th and the 11th, while on the 12th it  
states the crew fueled equipment, worked on trucks in the shop, and attended a defensive  
driving course, while a fourth entry is not legible. Notably, except for the timesheet on the 10th,  
the timesheets in this period were signed by Mr Romuld as the foreman.  
[160] Mr Pentelichuk was examined at length regarding Mr Romuld. In his evidence, he would  
not agree that Mr Romuld functioned as a foreman similar to Mr Kut. In Mr Pentelichuk’s words,  
Mr Romuld “was hired as a master mechanic but he does pull wrenches on the equipment ….  
as the job progresses, and more equipment is added, he would be more supervisory … he had  
multiple duties and at the time he did supervise one person but he probably spent more time  
pulling wrenches than supervising… the foremen are different amongst all the crew… it changes  
from foreman to foreman and it depends on the crew and its size”.  
Classification: Public  
36  
[161] In response to a request made by the OEs for further production regarding the  
supervisory aspects to the work performed by Mr Romuld (and Mr Kut), the Employer produced  
a Supervisor Competency Assessment form and a Supervisor Skills Assessment form for Mr  
Romuld that were signed by his supervisor, Mike Runcer, who was listed by the Employer as a  
General Superintendent. One of the competencies Mr Romuld was noted as having indicated  
he “knows the importance of and how to document verbal and written warnings, suspensions,  
layoffs, and terminations”. These forms were completed on January 16th. The OEs also pointed  
to a January 15th letter sent by the Employer to the Board Officer with information relating to its  
managers and supervisors. Mr Romuld is not listed by the Employer as one of its foremen  
having the capacity to hire, fire, and discipline, but the letter did include a Schedule B –  
Supervisor Job Descriptions, which lists “Master Mechanic” generally accountable for the  
“direction and supervision of spread mechanics and equipment service personnel. Responsible  
to the Superintendent for cost-effective servicing, maintenance and repair of spread equipment  
to enable the respective crews to attain production goals set by contract or the Superintendent”.  
Another relevant document is an Employee/DSP Hire-on Additional Terms and Conditions form  
for an employee named Andrew Wiebe, who according to the documents before the Board  
joined the Mechanics crew on January 14th as a mechanic. This document relating to Mr Wiebe  
is signed by Doug Romuld as his supervisor.  
[162] To say we deliberated for some time on Mr Romuld’s situation would be an  
understatement. In the end, we were satisfied the evidence, on balance, indicates he was  
functioning as a foreman. The Board Officer found in her report that foremen exercise  
managerial authority and should, in accordance with the managerial exclusion contained in  
section 1(l)(i) of the Code, be excluded from the proposed bargaining units for the purposes of  
these applications: none of the parties challenged that finding in argument. Nor did the  
Employer make any pitch to have Mr Romuld stay in the OEs’ unit. This is not surprising given  
the evidence. Mr Romuld signed off on the timesheets as the foreman of the crew and it is  
reasonable to expect he had supervisory responsibilities over Mr Reinhart, particularly early on  
when Mr Reinhart was performing some mechanical duties. As the days progressed, and the  
size of this crew expanded, the evidence indicates the Employer took steps to further solidify Mr  
Romuld’s supervisory status. To the extent, especially early on, he may have had a more  
“hands-on” role than some of the other foreman, Mr Pentelichuk acknowledged the Employer  
saw this as “leading by hands-on example” and this would have diminished as Mr Romuld’s  
supervisory duties increased. In sum, the OEs have tendered sufficient evidence Mr Romuld  
should be treated as a foreman for the purposes of these applications and accordingly he  
should be removed from the OEs’ unit.  
Joshua Moore  
[163] The last of the employees that the OEs argue were wrongly included in its unit is Joshua  
Moore. Mr Moore was hired as an operator and worked in the relevant period on the  
Yard/Warehouse crew at the Brewster project. According to the timesheets, Mr Moore was the  
only operator listed on this crew. The rest of the crew was comprised of Chris Evans as the  
foreman/purchaser, Trevor Brockbank as the Straw Boss, Michael Capot-Blanc as the  
warehouseman, and Jacob Trott and Bryce Edwards as labourers, most of whom we discuss  
further when addressing the Teamsters’ remaining objections.  
[164] The timesheets for this crew for the period January 5th through to the Teamsters’  
application date of January 12th indicate the only piece of heavy duty equipment assigned to the  
crew was a loader. The foreman’s comments on the timesheets for the most part describe the  
Classification: Public  
37  
same general activities occurring from one day to the next, including: parts runs, supporting the  
other crews and office staff, daily yard duties, making orders for supplies, and working on  
COVID boxes for crews. Of particular note, the timesheets note that on the 5th the crew emptied  
a trailer, on the 6th it set up fuel tanks, on the 7th it unloaded a “Hi-Boy from Drayton Yard”, and  
on the 8th it moved snow piles from the Christmas break.  
[165] Mr Pentelichuk confirmed, when asked about this crew’s activities, that the loader could  
have been used for unloading supplies from trucks. He also acknowledged that given the early  
stage of the Brewster project any one of the crew members could have been assigned to be  
doing the parts runs to Edmonton or Drayton Valley. When it was put to him that the operation  
of a loader or a skid steer in the yard and warehouse area is considered the work of the  
Teamsters, Mr Pentelichuk said he would have no objection to that.  
[166] In our view, there is more than enough evidence to find that Mr Moore has been  
incorrectly included in the OEs’ unit. Whether he was actually operating the loader to unload  
trailers or move snow in the yard, or assigned by the foreman to perform other tasks, like parts  
runs, to assist in the general set-up activities that were underway in the Brewster yard, it is  
apparent this was predominantly Teamsters work. The Teamsters made no specific  
submissions regarding Mr Moore, but it did advocate for Clayton Johnson, an operator on the  
ATCO Yard and Warehouse Crew, to be placed into its unit, and we have no information to  
suggest Mr Moore’s situation in the Brewster yard was substantially different from Mr Johnson’s.  
We are satisfied on the evidence before us that Mr Moore should be removed from the OEs’ unit  
and placed into the Teamsters’ unit.  
The Labourers’ Objections  
[167] The Labourers filed a number of objections regarding the Board Officer’s placement of  
certain employees, alleging some were wrongly included in its unit (Klayton Dutton, Ian Murphy,  
Tim Ouellette, and Kelsey Penno), while some were wrongly excluded from its unit (Lee Bear,  
Richard Burns, Rick Burns Jr., Henry Cardinal Jr., Shawn Cummings, Cody Ewald, Mason  
Groves, Linden Hora, Rocky Schultz, and Kyle Whalen).  
[168] At the commencement of closing arguments, the Labourers streamlined matters by  
dropping their objections relating to Tim Ouellette, Lee Bear, Richard Burns, Rick Burns Jr., and  
Linden Hora. By agreement of the OEs, Labourers and the Employer, Kelsey Penno was  
placed into the Pipefitters’ unit. The Labourers also acquiesced to Cameron Sorensen being  
removed from its unit, given the evidence that was brought forward indicating he was performing  
Teamsters’ functions. That left eight employees the subject of objections from the Labourers,  
six of whom we have addressed earlier in this decision (Henry Cardinal Jr., Shawn Cummings,  
Cody Ewald, Mason Groves, Rocky Schultz, and Kyle Whalen). The remaining two employees  
to consider are Klayton Dutton and Ian Murphy.  
Klayton Dutton  
[169] Klayton Dutton was a part of the Facilities crew at the ATCO project, which we  
previously considered when addressing objections filed by the Pipefitters regarding Jason  
Beauchamp and Clifford Mullis (at paragraphs 65 - 69).  
[170] According to his hire-on paperwork, Mr Dutton’s position was written down as “operator  
Labourer skid steer”. The Employer entered him in its payroll system and on the timesheets for  
the Facilities crew as an operator.  
Classification: Public  
38  
[171] As discussed previously, based on the evidence we received about the Facilities crew, it  
was apparent there was a significant amount of both operating engineer and labouring work  
taking place in the relevant period. Our analysis relating to Mr Beauchamp and Mr Mullis is they  
were quite likely predominantly performing labouring work, and this finding was informed in part  
by the fact there was already an operator on the crew (Mr Dutton) up to the OEs’ application  
date of January 8th, when a second operator was added presumably to help with the sizable  
amount of operating engineer work that was occurring. Of particular note, on January 7th, top  
soil was being stripped with a grader and stock piled, which we expect would have required Mr  
Dutton’s skills. This stripping of top soil continued on the 8th. On the 9th, the stripping of soil  
continued (this time with a dozer) along with the off-loading of c-cans. On the 11th, the  
Labourers’ application date, the crew was working with a 30-ton picker truck and, while it broke  
at some point in the day, it would appear it was still using the dozer. On the 12th, the picker  
truck was still in operation and a hoe was received by the crew (although it is not clear if it was  
put to immediate use).  
[172] The Labourers assert that while the Board Officer placed Mr Dutton in its unit the  
evidence establishes he was in all probability functioning as an operating engineer in the  
relevant period. The OEs argue Mr Dutton’s situation has not been properly remitted to the  
Board and even if it is found that he was functioning as an operating engineer on the Labourers’  
application date, it doesn’t mean he gets on the OEs’ list for January 8th.  
[173] We reject the assertion the objection regarding Mr Dutton has not been properly  
remitted. The Labourers’ identified in their initial February 1, 2021 letter to the Board that it was  
taking issue with Mr Dutton’s placement in its unit and its approach regarding the objection has  
been no different than the approach taken by the OEs’ with its objections. As for the OEs’  
contention the evidence of the activities taking place on the 8th does not establish operating  
engineer work was taking place or Mr Dutton was performing it, we find it plain and apparent  
such work was occurring, with a high probability the stripping of the top soil was being done by  
Mr Dutton operating heavy duty equipment. And it is reasonable to assume both he and the  
second operator, Mr Sadiq, were still engaged with heavy duty equipment on the days leading  
up to and past the Labourers’ application date. This evidence is sufficient to rebut the Board  
Officer’s placement of Mr Dutton in the Labourers’ unit and we direct he be moved into the OEs’  
unit for the purposes of these applications.  
Ian Murphy  
[174] Ian Murphy was the sole employee who testified regarding his activities in the period of  
these applications. The Board Officer had placed Mr Murphy into the Labourers’ unit, no doubt  
on the basis he had been classified by the Employer as performing a specialized labour role.  
The Labourers and the Teamsters both filed objections to that placement, arguing he properly  
belongs in the Teamsters’ unit.  
[175] Mr Murphy testified he was hired onto the Utility Crew at the ATCO project to drive a  
F550 truck with a goose-neck flat deck trailer. He said in the period of time he was employed,  
95 percent of his work involved driving that truck and trailer, whether to haul a skid steer to  
various locations or to haul other materials including matts, garbage, gravel, attachments, mini-  
excavators or lifts. The documents in evidence relating to Mr Murphy confirm he was employed  
in the days covering both the Labourers’ and the Teamsters’ application dates, and the  
timesheets confirm that such things as matts, steel plates, and barriers were being hauled to  
various locations in this period. None of this evidence was in any way contradicted. We are  
Classification: Public  
39  
satisfied Mr Murphy should be removed from the Labourers’ unit and placed into the Teamsters’  
unit.  
The Teamsters’ Objections  
[176] By closing arguments, the Teamsters indicated it was prepared to withdraw its  
objections regarding Bryce Edwards, Jacob Trott, and Linden Hora, accepting that the evidence  
in relation to them confirmed they belong in the Teamsters’ unit. As discussed previously when  
addressing David Reinhart, the Teamsters acquiesced to the Employer’s objection and agreed  
he should be placed in the Teamsters’ unit. The Teamsters also agreed the evidence  
concerning Cameron Sorensen, who was placed onto the Labourers’ list by the Board Officer,  
indicated that all material times he was functioning as a pilot car driver and that places him  
squarely in the Teamsters’ unit.  
[177] As a result, that leaves for discussion Trevor Brockbank, Michael Capot-Blanc, Pieter  
DeVries, and Tanner Hallum. An additional employee, James Cammaert, not formally objected  
to by any of the parties is briefly discussed below given his status was questioned by the  
Teamsters during closing argument.  
Trevor Brockbank  
[178] Trevor Brockbank was included in the Teamsters’ unit by the Board Officer. From the  
evidence, both documentary and oral, it would appear Mr Brockbank was initially hired to work  
as a warehouse person on the Yard & Warehouse Crew at the Brewster project. His pay rate of  
$43/hour increased to $48/hour in early January 2021, when his classification was changed to a  
Straw Boss. The Yard/Warehouse crew’s foreman was Chris Evans, although his position is  
described on the timesheets as a purchaser. The work performed by the Yard & Warehouse  
Crew at Brewster was addressed earlier in our discussion of Joshua Moore (at paragraphs 163 -  
166), which we found, not surprisingly, to be predominantly of a Teamsters’ nature.  
[179] Mr Pentelichuk was examined about Mr Brockbank, in particular with respect to the  
Employer’s letter submission to the Board Officer on January 17, 2021. In that letter, Mr  
Brockbank was included in its list of supervisors with the authority to hire, fire, and discipline.  
Mr Pentelichuk did not contest that information, nor was contrary evidence brought forward  
regarding his managerial capacity. As a result, it would appear the inclusion of Mr Brockbank in  
the Teamsters’ unit was an error by the Board Officer, and he should be excluded on the basis  
of his managerial functions pursuant to section 1(l)(i) of the Code.  
Michael Capot-Blanc  
[180] Michael Capot-Blanc was also a part of the Yard & Warehouse Crew at Brewster. He  
was included in the Teamsters’ unit by the Board Officer, and was one of the employees in  
relation to whom the Teamsters sought document production. The Teamsters never specifically  
challenged his inclusion in its unit, and we expect it was merely seeking to confirm its accuracy.  
The evidence received regarding Mr Capot-Blanc confirms he was correctly placed by the Board  
Officer. He was recorded as a parts runner in the timesheets and payroll system, he was  
working under that classification in the relevant period, and the timesheets specifically indicate  
part runs were taking place at that time. Mr Pentelichuk confirmed a person picking up and  
transporting parts back to the warehouse is part of the warehouse crew and when not driving for  
parts they would be performing other jobs around the yard. While Mr Pentelichuk could not  
confirm Mr Capot-Blanc was the individual performing that role in the relevant period, it defies  
Classification: Public  
40  
logic to think he was not doing so when the evidence indicates parts runs were going on at the  
time and he was hired for that very purpose. The transportation of parts and materials falls  
squarely under the Teamsters’ jurisdiction, and we are satisfied Mr Capot-Blanc should remain  
in the Teamsters’ unit.  
Pieter DeVries  
[181] The Teamsters assert Pieter DeVries should not be included in their unit because he  
was a sub-contractor, and therefore not an employee. Mr DeVries was classified as a truck  
driver and was part of the Trucking/Equipment crew spoken to earlier when we addressed  
Zachary Booth and Sean Schindel (at paragraphs 147 - 149). The Teamsters point to Mr  
DeVries’ “Subcontractor Project Hire Package” hire-on sheets in support of their argument he  
was not an employee under the Code. The payroll records indicate Mr DeVries’ numbered  
company was issued payments for the services he provided the Employer over the relevant  
period. When asked about Mr DeVries, Mr Pentelichuk said he would have been hired under  
the same arrangements as the rig welders, he was under the supervision of the Employer, and  
he would have worked with his own WCB and vehicle insurance coverage.  
[182] This evidence is wholly insufficient to rebut the Board Officer’s placement of Mr DeVries  
in the Teamsters’ unit. In the report produced for the Pipefitters’ application, the Board Officer  
addressed the status of the welders who were hired under the same Subcontractor Project Hire  
Package as Mr DeVries. Her findings on this point were not challenged. At pages 6 and 7 of  
her Pipefitters’ report, the Board Officer wrote:  
The Employer employed a large number of dependent contractors for this  
project. These dependent contractors invoice the Employer for hourly work or  
piece meal rates and equipment rental rates. They must have their own Workers  
Compensation clearance letter and must be self-insured. The Employer  
maintains the control and direction of the type of work, the time, the locations and  
the extent of work to be done. The risk of profit and loss on the project is the  
Employer’s alone.  
Dependent contractors are considered employees under Section 1(l) of the  
Code:  
(l) “employee” means a person who is employed to do work who is in  
receipt of or entitled to wages and includes a dependent contractor, but  
does not include …  
[183] We can see nothing on the evidence before us that distinguishes Mr DeVries from the  
welders as relating to their status and treatment as dependent contractors. And no evidence  
has been tendered that would suggest the Employer was not in control and direction of Mr  
DeVries’ work or that he bears the risk of profit and loss while he worked at the Brewster  
project. Mr Devries will remain in the Teamsters’ unit for the purposes of these applications.  
Tanner Hallum  
[184] Tanner Hallum was a part of the Yard and Warehouse crew at the ATCO project, and  
listed on the timesheets for that crew as specialized labour. The Board Officer placed him in to  
the Labourers’ unit. The Teamsters argue he belongs in its unit.  
Classification: Public