[1981] OLRB Rep. December 1815
1488-81-M John Vermeer, Applicant, v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Respondent, V. The Ontario Council of Regents of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, Respondent.
BEFORE: G. Gail Brent, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members E. J. Brady and H. Simon.
APPEARANCES: Gerald Vandezande for the applicant; Grant W Bruce for the respondent trade union.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 15. 1981
The applicant has applied to the Board, pursuant to section 53(2) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 74 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for an exemption from paying dues or contributions to the respondent union.
The applicant has been employed at Mohawk College since September 1, 1969. Prior to the collective agreement which came into effect on or about September 1, 198 l,there was no mandatory dues check-off for all employees in the bargaining unit. The applicant has never joined the union, nor has he ever authorized the deduction of dues from his salary.
The applicant testified at length concerning his religious beliefs and the basis of his objection to paying union dues. He is a member of the Emmanuel Christian Reformed Church to which he contributes about $120.00 per year, and his two oldest children attend Calvin Christian School, a private school which provides its students with a Christian education. The essence of his objection to paying any dues or contributions to the respondent trade union, as the Board understands it, is that the union does not overtly acknowledge God as the ruler of the earth, and the Bible as God's word. He also objects to the respondent's defence of the right to strike because he believes that strikes are against his Christian beliefs and are contrary to the obligation to serve God to the best of one's ability.
The applicant has attended a few meetings of the respondent in the past, but has consistently refused to join, and has always given his religious beliefs as the reason for his refusal.
In Wybenga, [1976] OLRB Rep. Aug. 422, the Board said, at paragraph 4:
It making its determination the Board applies a subjective test of sincerity. It is not appropriate for the Board to sit in judgment of the applicant's beliefs and determine whether those beliefs are right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, justified or unjustified. The question the Board must ask itself, then, is whether the religious beliefs expressed are truly those of the applicant.
- The Board is of the opinion that the approach taken in Wybenga is the correct one. It would be entirely inappropriate for a body such as this to try to determine whether the applicant was right, or even whether his beliefs conformed to those of his particular faith. This Board was not established to sit in judgement of the worth or correctness of any set of religious beliefs or to determine what is acceptable religious dogma. The test is the subjective test, as adopted in Wybenga, and the questions to be asked are:
(a) Are the beliefs sincerely held?
(b) Are the beliefs religious?
(c) Are those beliefs the cause of the objection?
In Henri' Funk v. The Manitoba Labour Relations Board 76 CLLC ¶1 14,006 (Man. C.A.) the Court considered the test to be applied in dealing with language similar to that found in this Act. The Court found that the Board erred in basing its decision on the tenets of Mr. Funk's church, rather than on his beliefs. At pages 36 and 37 of the report the Court remarked that the central inquiry would be whether the applicant was sincere in his belief, and that, once one is satisfied that the applicant was sincere, the matter should be determined. In Re Civil Service Association of Ontario (Inc.) and Anderson et al (1975), 1975 CanLII 757 (ON HCJ), 9 O.R. (2d) 341 (H.C., Divisional Court) the Court was faced with language identical to that in section 53(2). Mr. Anderson had been granted a religious exemption by the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal. He was a member of the United Church who believed that strikes were morally wrong. The Tribunal considered the question to be the personal, sincerely-held religious beliefs of the applicant, and the Court upheld that view. In particular, at pages 344 and 345 the Court, relying on Donaldv. Board of Education for City of Hamilton, [1945] 0. R. 518; 1945 CanLII 117 (ON CA), [1945] 3 D. L. R. 424, declined to assess the correctness or acceptability of Mr. Anderson's religious beliefs once it was determined that this beliefs were religious.
In this case the applicant appears to be sincere in his beliefs and the beliefs are religious in nature. His objection to the respondent is based on his religious beliefs. Given all of the authority, this Board must grant the applicant's request for exemption.
Mr. Bruce argued eloquently against the application, but his arguments were directed more against the principle of granting exemptions than against the applicant's situation. The respondent is obliged by the Act to represent the applicant, even though he is not a member, and to bargain on his behalf. It is thus providing him with services from which he benefits and for which he is required to pay nothing. If the respondent is to bear the obligation of representation, then it only seems fair that it should receive some fee for its services. The respondent here is in an especially vulnerable position because, unlike those governed by the Labour Relations Act, those governed by this Act can apply for exemption long after the first collective agreement. Therefore, the respondent is faced with the prospect of a changing population of employees who may apply for exemption at any time. Despite the persuasiveness of these arguments, this Board is confined to considering those matters set out in section 53(2), and the arguments presented by Mr. Bruce raise issues beyond the scope of this Board.
For all of the reasons set out above, the application for exemption is granted. The Board will retain jurisdiction to determine the charity to which the amounts deducted from the grievor's salary should be remitted in the event that the parties are unable to agree on one.