1592-80-M Murray G. Strong, complainant, V. Carl Finlay, Secretary-Treasurer, Local #222, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Respondents
BEFORE: R. A. Furness, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members D. B. Archer and L. Hemsworth.
APPEARANCES: Murray G. Strong for the complainant; Carl Finlay and James Wilbur for the respondents.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 15, 1981
1The name: Carl Finley Sec. Treasurer. UAW Local 222" appearing in the style of cause of this complaint as the name of the respondents is amended to read: "Carl Finlay, Secretary-Treasurer, Local #222, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America".
2The complainant has complained to the Board that the respondents have failed upon his request to furnish him with a copy of the audited financial statement of its affairs to the end of its last fiscal year, certified to be a true copy by its treasurer or other official responsible for the handling and administration of its funds, contrary to section 76 of The Labour Relations Act.
3The complaint was accompanied by the following letter:
Dear Sir,
I am presently employed by General Motors in the Oshawa maintenance dept.
I am requesting a financial audit of local 222 UAW as explained in the Labour Relations Act, (76-2).
On Monday Aug. 25, 1980 I spoke to financial secretary, Carl Finlay concerning the amounts of lost time and wages being paid by the hall. At this meeting I requested an adequate financial statement with all details. The one given the membership only generalizes certain accounts (copy enclosed). I explained I had read the booklet on Labour Relations Act and was officially requesting an adequate audit. Mr. Finley stated "you guys are always nitpicking, go fuck yourself'. I have sent a registered letter (copy enclosed) to Mr. Finley in case there might have been a misunderstanding.
At the shop committee meeting on Sept. 2, 1980, a letter was received from Mr. Finlay and read to the members informing those present that because of actions by Murray Strong everyone would have to sign in and out if they were to be paid for these meetings. This letter is included in the minutes and if your office could obtain a copy it would show Mr. Finlay has already attempted to intimidate me by this action. (71-2-A)
I have heard rumors, and they are only rumors, that Murray Strong will get a bullet in the head or cement shoes.
I guess I should say I have some fear of future action which could take place but I am doing this for the benefit of all the members of Local 222
UAW.
I have received no reply to my letter, therefore after waiting 10 days for an answer, I would like to ask if someone from your office could secure an adequate financial statement.
I am not stating my local is doing anything wrong but why would a financial secretary tell any member of the UAW union "to go fuck yourself' if there was nothing to hide.
I thank you for taking the time to read this.
Yours sincerely
"Murray Strong"
4In their reply to the Board dated November 14, 1980, the respondents stated in paragraph 4 as follows:
(1) The original request, made verbally approximately August 25, 1980, pertained to lost time records and other payroll related matters, and not the Local's financial statements as contemplated under section 76. (2) The registered letter (copy attached), not dated or signed, fails to demand either specific time periods or statements. (3) The Oshaworker regularly publishes the Local's financial statement for membership review.
5It was agreed that the complainant is a member of the respondent trade union and that the complaint was properly before the Board. The respondents initially adopted the position that while they recognized the jurisdiction of the Board, the complainant ought to be required to exhaust the respondent trade union's constitution and by-laws before the Board entertained the complaint. The respondents relied on the decision of the Board in Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, [1979] OLRB Rep. Oct. 917. The Board reserved on this position by the respondents and invited the complainant to provide the details of this complaint against the respondents.
6The complainant informed the Board that the information he sought was not adequately provided in the respondent trade union's financial statement and consisted of the following items: (i) lost time wages, (ii) expenses and travel, (iii) salaries and (iv) entertainment and gifts. It was also the complainant's position that the financial statement filed with the Board was not an audited financial statement as required under the Act. It therefore appeared to the Board that the complainant was complaining about a failure by the respondent trade union to furnish him upon his request, without charge, with a copy of its audited financial statement of its affairs to the end of its last fiscal year certified by its treasurer or other officer responsible for the handling and administration of its funds to be a true copy as provided for in section 76(1). It also appeared to the Board that the complainant was complaining that this financial statement was inadequate within the meaning of section 76(2).
7The complainant informed the Board that he had requested this information from the respondent Carl Finlay at a meeting of the respondent trade union last Fall. It was the position of the complainant that Mr. Finlay promised him this information and then denied him this information. The complainant also informed the Board that he asked Mr. Finlay during March of this year for the "lost time" of John Sinclair, Phil Bennett and Nip Tucker. The complainant further informed the Board that Mr. Finlay subsequently informed him that the executive board in Toronto had overruled his request. However, the complainant conceded that he had neither requested information about how the members' money was spent at a membership meeting nor made a formal complaint to the respondent trade union's recording secretary.
8It was the position of Mr. Finlay that a monthly report is read at the respondent trade union's monthly meetings and that the complainant never requested information at these meetings and, in particular, had not asked for details of the "lost time".
9Counsel for the respondents informed the Board that, while the respondent trade union was unable to provide figures for the amounts paid to individual members for "lost time", it would disclose the number of hours paid and the rate at which payment was made at the monthly membership meetings and that this was provided for under article 13 of its by-laws. Counsel also informed the Board that the respondent trade union could provide details on expenses with respect to publicity and entertainment at its monthly membership meetings and that it was on these occasions that such requests for information could be considered.
10During an adjournment of the hearing, the parties narrowed the issues in this complaint. The respondents offered to provide the complainant during office hours on the day following the hearing with the information he required with respect to the expenses for publicity, entertainment and gifts and the cost of the audit. The complainant informed the Board that he understood the respondent's offer and that he accepted it. At that point the complainant continued to request information with respect to lost time wages and salaries.
11At this point the Board heard testimony from Dale Tinkham of the firm which acts as the accountants for the respondent trade union. Mr. Tinkham is a member of a firm and is licensed by and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ontario. He gave evidence that the financial statement for the respondent trade union represented and contained reasonable information with respect to its financial affairs. The witness also informed the Board that in his opinion the financial statement for the respondent trade union was in conformity with the recommendations of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants with respect to presentation and disclosure. With respect to salaries, Mr. Tinkham informed the Board that there was no mandatory requirements in the recommendations of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants for the disclosure of individual salaries whether of officers of the respondent trade union or its office staff. When questioned about the disclosure of "lost time" in a financial report, the witness qualified his answer by pointing out that "lost time" (that is to say, the compensation of members of a trade union for wages lost while engaged on the business of that trade union) is peculiar to trade unions. He stated, however, that it was not a practice to either disclose or to recommend its disclosure. Mr. Tinkham concluded his evidence by stating that in his professional opinion the information contained in the respondent trade union's financial statement was adequate. Ted Murphy, the president of the respondent trade union, informed the Board that details of the "lost time" for a past month would be given at the monthly membership meetings if a request for such information was made at that time.
12Prior to entertaining argument on the evidence before the Board, the respondents supplied to the complainant the names of four full-time officers, the secretarial staff and the janitors who were receiving wages and salaries from the respondent trade union. The complainant argued that he did not have a properly audited financial statement and stated that he could not understand why the respondents would not provide him with the hours of "lost time". At this point, the complainant reduced his request to elected representatives and decided to abandon his request in so far as it related to standing committees and conventions. The respondents argued that the financial statement of the respondent trade union is audited by a firm of chartered accountants and by the trustees of the respondent trade union and that the financial statement is an audited financial statement within the meaning of section 76(1). The respondents also argued that the financial statement was adequate within the meaning of section 76(2) and relied on the unquestioned testimony of Mr. Tinkham.
13The financial statement which has been given to the complainant and which has been produced before the Board has not been audited by the respondent trade union s chartered accountants. However, it is the uncontradicted evidence before the Board that the trustees of the respondent trade union have audited this financial statement and Carl Finlay, the secretary-treasurer of the respondent trade union, and the person responsible for the handling and administration of its funds, has certified before the Board that the financial statement provided to the complainant and produced before the Board is a true copy of the respondent trade union's financial statement. The Board finds that the respondents have satisfied the requirements of section 76(1) of the Act.
14With respect to the adequacy of the financial statement, the evidence of Mr. Tinkham is that from his professional point of view the financial statement is adequate. The Board notes that a gross figure is set forth in the expenses of the respondent trade union under the heading of "Lost time — wages". A financial statement is a statement of net assets and a summary of income and expenses of a particular operating entity and does not set forth the minutiae of detail of the source and origin of every cent which is received and disbursed. This minutiae of details is to be found in the vouchers and bank statements of an operating entity. In order to obtain details of "lost time", it is open to the complainant to request this at the respondent trade union's monthly meetings pursuant to its by-laws. On the basis of the representations before it, the Board is satisfied that the complainant has a method of seeking detailed information of "lost time" at the monthly membership meetings and that such a method under the respondent trade union's by-laws is neither impractical nor illusory and that it would be neither inconvenient nor unreasonable to require the complainant to make his inquiries to the respondent trade union in accordance with its by-laws (see Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, supra) before requesting the Board, in the exercise of its discretion, to make the inquiry into the complaint under section 76(2).
15This complaint is dismissed.