Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1983] OLRB Rep. August 1354
1092-83-U Angelo Moro, Complainant, v. Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons Local 598, Respondent
BEFORE: George W. Adams, Q.C., Chairman.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 26, 1983
1This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the grievor has been dealt with by the respondent contrary to the provisions of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, and requests that "records be examined from 1957 to 1980 to see if there ever was a pension fund established, or voted upon to be established, from the regular monthly dues deductions in Local 117, which was merged into Local 598 in 1980, and whether any union deductions were used to supplement the Canada Pension Plan before and after its inception".
2Section 68 reads as follows,
A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
3The misconduct that the complainant has alleged concerns a dispute between himself and his union regarding the union's pension fund. It would appear that the complainant is not challenging the quality of the respondent's representation vis a vis his employer, but rather is asking the Board to concern itself with a matter that is solely an internal union problem. The complainant is in essence asking the Board to intervene to determine the existence, or lack thereof, of a union pension plan. Such an undertaking would involve the Board in matters of concern that exist between the union and the complainant, and would have nothing to do with the quality of representation with respect to his employment relationship. The Board has consistently ruled in past decisions, that the duty of fair representation in section 68 is concerned only with the representation by a trade union of an employee in relation to his or her employer. See Ford Motor Company, [1973] O.L.R.B. Rep. Oct. 519; Myrna Wood, [1981] O.L.R.B. Rep. 137; Frank Manoni, [1981] O.L.R.B. Rep. Dec. 1775; Sylvia Colalicco, [1982] O.L.R.B. Rep. July 1066. Simply put, these cases have established that section 68 does not give the Board jurisdiction to intervene in internal union problems. The Board stated in Mario Moreira, [1980] O.L.R.B. Rep. July 1039:
This Board has no specific authority under the Act to undertake any sort of watchdog role over a union's internal processes under its constitution and bylaws.
4In the circumstances, the Board is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case for a breach of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act. Section 71(1) of the Board's Rules of Procedure is as follows:
71d.-(1) 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.
5The Board is of the opinion that this complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the above provision and hereby does so.