[1984] OLRB Rep. February 275
2574-83-U Ladelle Hiles, Complainant, v. Carman Dinanno, Respondent
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. Wilson and C. A. Ballentine.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 8, 1984
1This is a complaint filed under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act. It is the second such complaint which the complainant has launched. The early complaint was returned to Miss Hiles, without processing, because it did not contain adequate information. The letter from the Board's Solicitor which accompanied the complaint when it was returned includes the following comments:
I observe that the forms which you filed have not been dated or signed by you, do not indicate what section or sections of the Labour Relations Act have been violated, do not specify the relief or remedy you seek, nor do they state the nature of each act or omission which you allege gives rise to a violation of the Labour Relations Act.
With the Solicitor's letter were included: blank copies of Form 58, a copy of the Guide to the Labour Relations Act, and several Board pamphlets, including one explaining unfair labour practice proceedings. The Solicitor suggested in his letter that it would probably be appropriate for the complainant to consult a lawyer or someone knowledgeable in labour relations matters, before making a new allegation of a breach of the law.
2The present complaint was filed on February 7, 1984. It is dated January 29, 1984 and signed. The named respondent is "Carman Dinanno (foreman)". In the space provided for the sections alleged to have been contravened, one finds the words "section 11.30 art-x". The space stating the relief requested is incomplete and paragraph 4, which requires a concise statement of the acts and omissions complained of has not been completed either.
3In the circumstances, it is a little difficult to determine what this complaint is all about — although it would appear that an employee is claiming that she is being harassed by her foreman. There is nothing to indicate what, if anything, this has to do with rights or remedies under the Labour Relations Act since, as we have already noted, there is no reference to any section of the Act nor anything on the face of the documents to indicate any misconduct which would fall within the scope of the Labour Relations Act. On the contrary, the only reference on the complaint appears to be to some provision in a collective agreement which was neither spelled out nor filed with the Board. Complaints of a breach of a collective agreement are ordinarily dealt with through the grievance-arbitration provisions in the collective agreement itself — not by the Labour Relations Board (see section 44 of the Act).
4Section 71 of the Board's Rules of Procedure deals with situations, such as the present one, where a complaint filed with the Board does not make out a prima facie case for the relief requested. In other words, the complaint on its face, even if true, does not disclose a breach of the Labour Relations Act. Section 71 reads as follows:
- -(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.
(2) The applicant or complainant may within ten days after he is served with the decision of the Board under subsection (1) request the Board to review its decision.
(3) A request for review under this section shall contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons upon which the applicant relies.
(4) Upon a request for review being filed, the Board may,
(a) direct that the application or complaint be re-opened and proceeded with by the Board in accordance with the provisions applicable thereto;
(b) direct the registrar to serve the applicant and any other person who in the opinion of the Board may be affected by the application or complaint with a notice of hearing to show cause why the application or complaint should be re-opened; or
(c) confirm its decision dismissing the application or complaint.
In other words, where, in the opinion of the Board, there is no prima facie case, the complaint may be dismissed by the Board without a hearing. The purpose, of course, is to avoid the time and expense of a legal proceeding when there is initially no apparent basis for the case at all.
5Having regard to the foregoing, this complaint is hereby dismissed.