Carpenters' union allowed to correct Marwest employer name in certification bid

The Manitoba Labour Board has allowed a carpenters' union to replace the employer named in its original certification application, finding that it had confused two similarly named companies rather than deliberately chosen the wrong one.

In its August 17, 2026 interim substantive order, the board permitted the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 343 to change Marwest Construction Ltd. to Marwest Construction Mountain Ltd. It also treated the union's second certification application as withdrawn. The ruling corrected the application; it did not grant certification.

Two applications and a disputed employer name

The union's March 27 application sought a Manitoba craft bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenter apprentices, excluding employees excluded by the Labour Relations Act. Construction, as the board called the initially named company, responded that it had no employees in the proposed unit on the application date.

The identity issue developed through further filings and board directions. On April 8, the union supplied a redacted employment contract naming Mountain. On April 10, after the board ordered Construction to complete the additional-employer portion of its return, Construction identified Mountain while maintaining that the companies were separate businesses.

The union filed a second certification application against Mountain on April 13, then requested an amendment to the original application on April 16. Later that day, Mountain filed a return saying it had no employees in the proposed unit on the second application's filing date. It said a carpenter had already resigned. The union disputed the resignation date and maintained that another employee performed carpentry work.

The board ordered votes in both applications, with the ballots and ballot boxes sealed pending resolution of the issues. The union subsequently sought a declaration that the companies were common employers. The second certification application and common-employer proceeding were put on hold while the amendment request was considered.

The May 22 hearing dealt only with the requested amendment. Neither side called evidence; both relied on the existing record.

Why the board allowed the correction

The union said it had organized a job site where several Marwest names were used and had made a mistake identifying the employer. It described the second application as a precaution in a time-sensitive industry, but preferred to amend the first and withdraw the second.

The companies objected that the union knew Mountain's identity from the employment contract before filing again. They argued that pursuing multiple routes was abusive: both companies had to respond and attend planning meetings, and two votes had to be conducted. They also disputed that an amendment would simplify matters while the common-employer application remained unresolved.

The board relied on its broad amendment power under section 142(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act. Under rule 4(1) of its procedural rules, amendments require the board's leave, and the board may impose terms.

It accepted that naming Construction was a mistake and found nothing suggesting that the union had deliberately selected the wrong employer or acted strategically in doing so. Although the union could have been more diligent, that did not justify refusing the amendment in this case. The board noted that Manitoba's Act did not expressly require proof of a good-faith mistake as in Ontario, or a bona fide mistake as in Alberta.

The timing also mattered. Construction's completed return identifying Mountain arrived late on a Friday. The second application followed on Monday, and the amendment request on Thursday. Crucially, the amendment request preceded Mountain's return asserting there were no bargaining-unit employees. The board said it might have been less inclined to allow a request prompted by information obtained through the second proceeding. It found the delay reasonable in the circumstances.

The companies' expenditure of time and resources responding to separate applications did not establish prejudice warranting refusal on this record. The board added that a finding of no prejudice was not an absolute prerequisite to permitting an amendment.

That was not an endorsement of tactical multiple filings. The board distinguished L&A Scaffolding, where a union filed again for the same unit with the same employer after continuing to organize, when the first proceeding was already advanced. It emphasized that it would remain vigilant against misuse of multiple applications.

Notice did not amount to a common-employer finding

The board accepted that the union had organized the job site and confused the corporate employer's name. It found, on a balance of probabilities, that Mountain knew about the first application. The companies shared counsel and did not dispute that they had the same directors and worked at the same site.

The board also observed that the companies had not readily provided information until directed to do so. It expressly acknowledged that they were not legally obliged to volunteer information, while finding that their approach contributed to the procedural difficulties.

Simplifying the proceedings was not the board's guiding consideration, and other issues could still require decisions. The August order did not determine the disputed employee classification or resignation date, report a ballot result, or declare the companies common employers.

The order left the first application amended and treated the April 13 application, case 88/26/LRA, as withdrawn. For the separate common-employer application, case 107/26/LRA, the board directed the union to advise within one week of the order whether it intended to proceed or seek permission to withdraw. That direction was not itself a withdrawal or a decision on common-employer status.