Ontario Labour Relations Board
Citation: Joseph R. Strong v. Loyal 1005 United Steelworkers of America, 1983 CanLII 927 Date: March 11, 1983 File No.: 1715-82-U
Between: Joseph R. Strong, Complainant and Loyal 1005 United Steelworkers of America, Respondent and Stelco Inc., Intervener
Before: M. G. Mitchnick, Vice-Chairman.
Appearances: Jim Gillen and Joe Strong for the complainant Martin Levinson, Paul Cavalluzzo, Len Taylor, Cecil Taylor, Dan Lynch, Val Patrick, and Bernie Hanson for the respondent Paul S. Jarvis, Richard A. Lane and Don W Bates for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is a complaint filed under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the complainant, Joseph Strong, has been dealt with by his trade union contrary to the provisions of section 68 of the Act. That section provides:
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 of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
2The origin of the complaint is an "Incident Report," or written reprimand, given to Mr. Strong by his foreman in November of 1980. Mr. Strong and other employees had gone to the locker-room for the start of the ten-minute wash-up period at the end of the day. The foreman encountered Mr. Strong there, and advised him that he was in the locker-room two minutes early. Mr. Strong looked at his watch, and found that the foreman was right. Mr. Strong then went back into the plant area to recheck the clock on the floor, and found that it was running two minutes fast. Mr. Strong explained this to the company, but was given the "incident report" anyway. Mr. Strong testified that when he returned the next day, the company had fixed all the clocks in the plant.
3Mr. Strong grieved his discipline, and his grievance was carried through all of the steps of the grievance procedure. In May of 1981 his grievance was posted to arbitration, where it sat for many months.
4In the summer of 1982, the Local held its normal elections, and certain changes in the Executive resulted. Mr. Len Taylor, for example, replaced Mr. Jim Gillen as chairman of the grievance committee. The Divisional Chairman on the grievance committee for Mr. Strong's Division continued to be Dennis O'Brien, but Mr. O'Brien was temporarily transferred to a special benefits committee because of the unusual number of lay-offs occurring in the plant. As a result, Danny Lynch was appointed to take Mr. O'Brien's place on the grievance committee. Normally a "moratorium" is placed on grievances and arbitration during contract negotiations at the plant, and a subcommittee is struck to attempt to settle all outstanding grievances. In the 1981 negotiations, which concluded in November of that year, these efforts were only partially successful. All of the "language" grievances were dealt with, but not the discipline ones like Mr. Strong's. As a result, the incoming grievance committee was faced with a backlog of some 200 arbitration cases left over from the prior collective agreement. Len Taylor obtained approval from the Local's President, Cecil Taylor, to meet with the company and discuss, on an individual basis, all of these outstanding grievances, with a view to resolving them. These efforts were largely successful, and Mr. Strong's grievance was one of the ones withdrawn in the process. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Strong was told before the fact or only after that his grievance was being withdrawn. For the purpose of this case, the Board is prepared to accept Mr. Strong's recollection as the accurate one, and to find that the discussion of his grievance took place after he received the following letter:
November 5, 1982
Mr. J. Strong, 24 Wise Cres.
HAMILTON, Ontario
Reference: no. 2775 - Incident Report Dear Sir and Brother:
After a careful review of all the facts and a further meeting with the company, the grievance committee feels we could not be successful in arbitration.
The committee, therefore, had no alternative but to withdraw, without prejudice, your grievance.
Yours fraternally
"D. Lynch/h"
D. Lynch
Acting Chairman Division No. 4
LU 1005 Grievance Committee
opeiu 343/h
What is clear is that Mr. Lynch talked to both Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Gillen about the facts set out in