CITATION: Tang v. Maple Leaf Poultry, 2017 ONSC 3869
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 452/16 DATE: 20170622
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, M. EDWARDS and D. EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
MING TANG
Ming Tang, acting in person
Applicant
– and –
MAPLE LEAF POULTRY, UNITED FOOD and COMMERCIAL WORKERS CANADA, LOCAL 1000A
Dan J. Shields for the Respondent, Maple Leaf Poultry
Ryan D. White & Matt Masters, for the Respondent, UFWCQ Local 1000A
Respondents
– and –
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Leonard Marvy for the Ontario Labour Relations Board
Intervener
HEARD at Toronto: June 22, 2017
NORDHEIMER J. (orally)
[1] Ming Tang seeks judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board that dismissed the applicant’s application alleging that the respondent Union failed in its obligation of fair representation towards her.
[2] The applicant was a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1OOOA (“the Union”). The applicant was terminated on February 24, 2012 by her then employer, Maple Leaf Poultry. The Union grieved the applicant’s termination and the issue was referred to a labour arbitrator. After five days of hearing, the arbitrator dismissed the applicant’s grievance and upheld her termination. The applicant subsequently filed a complaint with the Board complaining, among other things, about the Union’s representation of her at the grievance arbitration and its refusal to seek a judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision.
[3] The Board dismissed the applicant’s allegation of a breach of the duty of fair representation. In its decision, the Board carefully reviewed the allegations made by the applicant regarding what she says that the Union ought to have done but did not.
[4] The issue before this court is whether the Board’s decision is a reasonable one. I conclude that it is.
[5] The applicant is asking this court to overturn the Board's findings of fact, including findings concerning her credibility. She asks that the court reweigh the evidence that was before the Board and substitute its own conclusions for those set out in the Board’s Initial Decision and Reconsideration Decision. The applicant also seeks to reargue the grievance presided over by Arbitrator Harris, a decision which was not subject to review by the Board. None of this is within the authority of this court to do on a judicial review application.
[6] The Board heard the matter and had before it extensive documentation on the basis of which it concluded that the applicant was not credible, that appropriate interpretation services were provided to her throughout the hearing of her grievance, that any delay in communicating the arbitrator’s decision to her was the result of an error made in good faith and that there were no obvious errors in the arbitrator’s decision, such that the Union was compelled to seek a judicial review.
[7] There is no basis, on the record that is before us, that could possibly justify this court interfering with the decision of the Board given that the accepted standard of review with respect to its decision is reasonableness. In particular, I agree with the Board’s conclusion, at para. 44:
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the award on its face contained errors so “patent and pervasive” that the UFCW must be considered to have acted arbitrarily in not seeking to judicially review it.
[8] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[9] I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “This application is dismissed for oral reasons given. Costs to Maple Leaf fixed at $2,000 all inclusive and to the Union at $2,500 all inclusive. The Board does not seek costs.”
___________________________ Nordheimer J.
I agree
M. Edwards J.
I agree
D. Edwards J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 22, 2017
Date of Release: June 27, 2017
CITATION: Tang v. Maple Leaf Poultry, 2017 ONSC 3869
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 452/16 DATE: 20170622
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, M. EDWARD and D. EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
MING TANG
Applicant
– and –
MAPLE LEAF POULTRY, UNITED
FOOD and COMMERCIAL WORKERS
CANADA, LOCAL 1000A
Respondents
– and –
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Intervener
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 22, 2017
Date of Release: June 27, 2017