[1980] OLRB Rep. July 1095
0554-80-U Eva Burt, Complainant, v. Thomas Product Co. Ltd, Respondent.
BEFORE: George W. Adams, Chairman and Board Members J. A. Ronson and C. A. Ballentine.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 2, 1980
This is a complaint filed by Eva Burt pursuant to Section 79 of The Labour Relations Act. The complaint names Thomas Product Company Ltd. as respondent and "District 65 D.W.A. and C. Local" as an interested party. The complaint is contained only on the first page of Form 32 and does not set out what sections of the Act the respondent is alleged to have violated. Also enclosed with the complaint and an accompanying letter describing the actions complained of and requesting reinstatement and removal of discipline was a cheque in the amount of $10.00 with no payee named.
It appears to the Board that the essence of the complaint against the respondent employer is that the complainant was improperly demoted, and was subsequently suspended for three days without pay.
The complainant has not alleged what sections of the Act have been contravened, nor has she alleged any particulars which disclose a violation of The Labour Relations Act. She does not suggest that she was demoted because she had engaged in trade union activity, nor does she allege that the Union has failed to adequately represent her. The complaint simply contests the action of the respondent employer in demoting the complainant.
Under Section 79 of The Labour Relations Act, the Board has jurisdiction only to deal with complaints which allege a violation of the Act. (See Ernest D'Anrea, [1975] OLRB Rep. Aug. 646; National Sea Products, [1961] OLRB Rep. May61). The demotion of an employee without just cause, while possibly being a violation of a collective agreement, if one exists, does not by itself contravene The Labour Relations Act. There is therefore nothing in the complaint disclosing a violation of the Act.
Section 46 of the Board's Rule of Procedure, Regulation 551, R.R.O. 1970, provides:
"Where an application or complaint does not, in the opinion of the Board, make out a prima facie case for the remedy requested, the Board may dismiss the application or complaint without a hearing and it shall, in its decision, state the reason for the dismissal."
Rule 46 permits the Board to dismiss a complaint or application without a hearing where the complaint or application does not, on its face, make out a case for the remedy requested. The power given to the Board under Rule 46 is used in only those cases where there is nothing contained in the complaint or application which would permit the Board to give the complainant or applicant the relief sought. See Ford Motor Company, [1972] OLRB Rep. Sept. 828; Concrete Construction Supplies, [1979] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1152.
The complaint must be dismissed. The Registrar is directed to return the cheque which was enclosed with the material to the complainant.
The Board directs the complainant's attention to Section 46(2) and (3) of the Board's Rules of Procedure which provide:
46(2)"The applicant or complainant may within then days after he is served with the decision of the Board under subsection I request the Board to review its decision".
46(3) 'A request for review under this section shall contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons upon which the applicant relies".
The Board may, upon an application for review, reconsider its decision if the complainant can satisfy the Board that its original decision was incorrect. The complainant may also file a fresh complaint against her employer or trade union alleging facts which disclose a violation of The Labour Relations Act.