Union did not breach duty of fair representation by implementing a pension plan over majority employee opposition.
The complainant, a truck driver, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and implementing a pension plan despite the opposition of a majority of the covered employees.
The Board found that the union was not required to act merely as an agent for the majority's immediate wishes.
Because the union considered the employees' views but reasonably concluded that a pension plan was in the long-term best interests of the bargaining unit as a whole, its actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
The complaint was dismissed.
John Daniell v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 1987 CanLII 3054
