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 Labourers’ application 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