[1985] OLRB Rep. March 456
3222-84-U Robert Williams, Applicant, v. Monarch Fine Foods Company Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members B. L. Armstrong and F. W. Murray.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 8, 1985
- This is an application for a declaration of unlawful lockout filed by the applicant Robert Williams. In support of his claim that he has been unlawfully locked out by the respondent, the applicant sets out the following material facts in paragraph 2 of Form 38 that he has filed.
The company have [sic] had me locked out since the fall of 1982. At the time of the lockout I was following the terms and conditions of the work contract to the letter. The company falsely accused me of being absent from work without just cause at a section 89 complaint hearing Nov. 22, 1984. The company also falsely accused me of asking for severance pay. I have never asked for severance pay as it has never been my intention to sever, but to continue work. At the same Nov. 22 hearing I did give evidence to the contrary and did prove that I was absent from work due to injuries received on the job and that I did have a valid worker compensation claim.
The work contract does call for absence due to worker compensation claims. The company did admit that they were notified of the absence, and they were not able to call any witness that could either support or coroborate [sic] any of their malicious alegations [sic]. I want the lockout declared unlawfull [sic] as the company have [sic] clearly breached their contract and the law.
- Section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, which provides for application for declaration of unlawful lockout, reads as follows:
Where, on the complaint of a trade union, council of trade unions, employer or employers' organization, the Board is satisfied that an employer or employers organization called or authorized or threatened to call or authorize an unlawful lock-out or locked out or threatened to lock out employees or that an officer, official or agent of an employer or employers' organization counselled or procured or supported or encouraged an unlawful lock-out or threatened an unlawful lock-out, the Board may so declare and, in addition, in its discretion, it may direct what action if any a person, employee, employer, employers' organization, trade union or council of trade unions and their officers, officials or agents shall do or refrain from doing with respect to the unlawful lock-out or the threat of an unlawful lock-out.
[emphasis added]
It is clear from the phrase emphasized that an application under that section may be filed only by a trade union, a council of trade unions, and employer or employers' organizaÂtion. Therefore, an individual does not have standing to file an application for declaration of unlawful lockout (see: Purple Heart Film Corporation, [1979] OLRB Rep. June 551).
Quite apart from the absence of standing, the particulars set out in the complaint make it clear that the application relates to the discharge of the applicant, allegedly in contravention of the collective agreement and "the law", presumably meaning, the Labour Relations Act. While the applicant, if he is able to establish his allegations, may be entitled to relief before another forum or in other proceedings before this Board, the material facts as alleged do not fit the definition of "lockout" in the Labour Relations Act, which is as follows:
l.-(l) In this Act,
(k) "lock-out" includes the closing of a place of employment, a suspension of work or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ a number of his employees, with a view to compel or induce his employees, or to aid another employer to compel or induce his employees, to refrain from exercising any rights or priviÂleges under this Actor to agree to provisions or changes in provisions respecting terms or conditions of employment or the rights, privileges or duties of the employer, an employers' organization, the trade union, or the employees.
- Section 71(1) of the Board's Rules of Procedure provide as follows:
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.
In view of the foregoing, the Board is of the opinion that the application does not make out a prima facie case for the remedy requested by the applicant and must be dismissed pursuant to section 71(1) of the Board's Rules.
This application is accordingly dismissed.