[1985] OLRB Rep. May 715
2340-84-U Michael Ross, Complainant, v. NTN Bearing Mfg Canada, Ltd. and United Steelworkers of America, Respondents, v. Klaus Hatje, Intervener
BEFORE: Paula Knopf, Vice-Chairman.
APPEARANCES: Michael Ross for the complainant; Keith Oleksiuk and George Teal for the respondent union; Antone Gregorio and Tom Patterson for the respondent company and the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 27, 1985
The name of the respondent company is amended to read NTN Bearing Mfg Canada, Ltd.
This is a complaint under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act. The complainant alleges that the Union has breached its duty of representation by failing to represent him in the grievance of his discharge and several other matters.
Preliminary Matters
- Before dealing with the merits of the case, several preliminary matters should be addressed. At the outset of the hearing, the complainant was asked by the Board to list the particulars of his complaint. He listed the following incidences where he says the Union has violated section 68 of the Act:
(1) January, 1984 — the discharge grievance was not processed through to arbitration.
(2) July 19, 1982 — he was spoken to rudely by a Union official and told how to process a complaint against that official.
(3) September 29, 1982 — he was spoken to rudely by the Company's president in the presence of a Union representative.
(4) 1982 — he failed in obtaining a job after a competition which he said was discriminatory and the Union took no action on his behalf.
(5) November 7, 1983 — he sought the assistance of the Union but was intimidated by their members.
(6) The Union failed to respond on the following grievances:
I August 12, 1981, Grievance No. 59 — denial of Union representation by a foreman
II August 25, 1983 — Grievance No. 83-5, discrimination in testing for a job
III Grievance No. 83-11, telephone safety
IV December 15, 1983 — Grievance No. 83-22, unjust suspension
V January 10, 1984 — Grievance No. 8401, foreman doing
bargaining work and harassment
VI January 24, 1984 — Grievance No. 84-03, unjust dismissal.
(7) Mass corruption between the Union and the Company at all levels.
After this list was presented, the respondent Union objected and submitted that the Board should exercise its discretion to decline to hear most of the items because of the delay in bringing the complaints forward. Further, the Union submitted that several of the complaints do not fall within the scope of section 68. The complainant responded to these submissions by pointing out that he would be equally prejudiced by the delay. He explained the delay by saying that the events seemed like nothing at the time. I turned to God. It was only when I lost my job that I realized I had to do something. He also said he wanted to use the past incidents to prove later ones.
In considering the question of delay, the Board had in mind its policies and considerations set out in Corporation of the City of Mississauga, [1982] OLRB Rep. March 420, paragraphs 20, 21 and 22.
The Board issued a ruling at the hearing that the complainant could not proceed with the following portions of his complaint for the reasons stated:
(1) July 19, 1982 — this does not fall within section 68 as it does not deal with the duty of representation. Further, too much time has passed since the event.
(2) September 29, 1982 — this does not fall within section 68. Further, too much time has passed since the event.
(3) 1983 job competition — too much time has passed since the event. Further, no notice had been given to the incumbent.
(4) November 7, 1983 — too much time has passed since this event.
(5) Too much time has passed since the following grievances:
August 12, 1981 — No. 59
April 25, 1983 — No. 83-5
October 9, 1983 — No. 83-17
October 17, 1983 — No. 83-11
December 15, 1983 — No. 83-22
(6) "Corruption" — this was too vague an allegation and insufficient in particulars to fairly enable a response to be formed against it. Further, it did not appear, prima facie, to fall within the scope of section 68.
The Board indicated to the parties that it was willing to hear and proceed with the hearing of all the events relating to the grievance of January 10, 1984, being Grievance No. 84-01, as well as the events surrounding the Union's conduct over the complainant's discharge in January, 1984.
After this ruling was made, the complainant had asked that the case be adjourned to enable him to obtain counsel and witnesses. Up to that point the complainant had been unrepresented. He had been asked by the Board at the outset of the hearing whether he wished to appear on his own behalf and he indicated at that time that that was his desire. However, after the preliminary ruling, the complainant indicated his discomfort with the proceedings and stated that he had not expected to be opposed by two lawyers. He also indicated that he had previously acceded to the respondent's request for an adjournment and thus expected reciprocal courtesy at this time. Counsel for the respondents and the intervener both opposed the adjournment for the same reasons. They both indicated that they would have consented had the request been made before the day of the hearing. However, once the hearing was underway, their clients would be severely inconvenienced and financially affected by an adjournment. The Board asked the parties to try to resolve the request for the adjournment amongst themselves and recessed to allow such attempts to be made with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer. However, the parties were unable to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement. Thus, the Board was forced to make a ruling on this matter.
The Board is sensitive to the difficulties a layman has in attempting to present a case against two experienced lawyers in the formal context of a hearing. However, the responsibility of the Board is to ensure fairness to all parties. In a case like this, the ongoing relations of the parties are strained by such a case hanging over their heads. It benefits no one to have delays in these cases. Further, the parties are notified well in advance of the hearing date to enable them to prepare to gather together the proof of their case. Unless compelling reasons can be given, the Board is loathe to adjourn a case in its midst. The Divisional Court has said of this Board . . . a party who has adequate notice of the hearing does not have the right to an adjournment and is not entitled to insist on one for his convenience or the convenience of his representative (Flamboro Downs Holdings and Teamsters Local 1879 (1979) 1979 CanLII 1669 (ON HCJ), 24 O.R. (2d) 400 (Ont. Div. Ct.). The parties must be expected to come to the hearing with all their available evidence and with a representative if one is desired. An impossible situation will result if a party could obtain an adjournment once she/ he realized the nature of these proceedings. In this case, the complainant did not indicate any reason why he had not previously obtained counsel or subpoenaed witnesses. Because of this, and because of the tremendous inconvenience that would result to the other parties and their many witnesses, no circumstances were put before the Board to warrant an adjournment. By way of hindsight, this Board is able to note that the complainant was able to present his case clearly and effectively. Further, the witnesses he mentioned that he would have wanted for his own case were called by the respondent Union. Thus, the complainant had the opportunity to adduce evidence from those witnesses on his own behalf through cross-examination.
The Facts
The complainant testified on his own behalf. He explained that he was working the night shift on January 21, 1984. He was working on a packing job when he realized that he had run out of boxes. He and his lead hand, Terry Coote, went looking for boxes in an upstairs area. While looking for the boxes, Mr. Coote pointed to a cubbyhole and said that someone was sleeping there and that they would find out that night who it was. Later, the complainant saw Klaus Hatje, the Production Manager on the premises. This was unusual during the night shift. The complainant's curiosity was peaked when he was in the lunchroom around 4:00 a.m. sitting with Chris Anderson, the Union Steward, when Mr. Coote came over and told Mr. Anderson that Mr. Hatje wanted to see him. The complainant followed Mr. Anderson and Mr. Coote out towards the floor although Mr. Coote had indicated to him that he need not come along.
When Mr. Hatje was talking to Mr. Coote and Mr. Anderson, the complainant says he decided that that would be a good opportunity to see what Mr. Hatje was concerned about. He went up the ladder towards the cubbyhole and saw Peter Crouse lying in the cubbyhole. He roused Mr. Crouse and told him that Mr. Hatje was downstairs. The complainant says he doesn't know whether Mr. Crouse was sleeping or not but that he rubbed his eyes and that they both went down the ladder. At that point Mr. Crouse was confronted by Mr. Hatje. The complainant recalls Mr. Crouse indicating to Mr. Hatje that Mr. Crouse had had a lot of problems with his wife. The complainant says he felt sorry for Mr. Crouse and testified that he told the men around there simply that he would be a witness for Mr. Crouse. At the same time, the complainant was concerned that the Company may be trying to fire him or build up a case around him. However, Mr. Crouse was told to go home and the complainant was told to return to work.
The following day, the complainant returned to work but was injured in the course of his work and has been off work on disability since then. However, on Monday, January 23rd, the complainant and Mr. Crouse were both notified that they were terminated from the Company. A grievance was filed immediately.
On February 2, 1984, a third step meeting was held between representatives of the Company and the Union to discuss the grievance of Mr. Crouse and the complainant. For the first time the complainant was given the reasons for his termination. The following reasons were given:
A. That Mike Ross threatened a fellow employee, Bob Sales, with bodily harm and death without provocation on or about Mar. 11, 1983 in the plant. A written disciplinary notice was given and copies of a written report of the incident, the disciplinary notice and Mr. Sales written complaint are in the personnel file.
B. That during a meeting in the Company boardroom in June of 1982 Mike Ross threatened Jim Watson with a knife and Messrs. Jim Watson, Richard Chung and Mike Currie with retaliation for alleged acts of discrimination. A written report of the incident is included in his personnel file.
C. That in September 1982 Mike Ross threatened and harassed Mark Steffier for not substantiating an allegation against Jim Watson. A written report of Mr. Steffler's complaint is in his personnel file.
D. That in December 1983 Mike Ross threatened and harassed Lcuis Yeuong without provocation. Mr. Yeuong lodged a verbal complaint at that time and a report of the complaint is in his personnel file.
E. That on Aug. 27, 1982 Mike Ross in the course of working as a Grinding Operator committed a gross act of negligence by improperly grinding 6202UN rings instead of 5C0228UN rings. The rings had to be reworked at a substantial cost to the Company. A written warning was given and a copy is in his personnel file.
F. That in [sic] December 5, 1983 Mike Ross in the course of working as a Grinding Operator committed a gross act of negligence by improperly grinding 20,130 6202 outer rings to the wrong dimensional standards. The cost to the Company as damages amounted to $6,000.00. A written warning was given and a three (3) day suspension was imposed.
G. That on Jan. 10, 1984 while working as an Assembly Operator Mike Ross refused to perform work assigned by his Production Foreman, Mr. Glen McLaren and acted insubordinately to Mr. McLaren. A verbal warning was given and a copy of Mr. McLaren's report is in his personnel file.
H. That on January 21, 1984 Mr. Klaus Hatje, the Production Manager saw Peter Crouse sleeping in the Mezzanine storage area. This was at a time when Mr. Crouse was supposed to be working as a Technician. Mr. Hatje met with Terry Coote and Chris Anderson in the Shipping area and while explaining the sleeping incident to them, observed Mike Ross who was in the vicinity, disappear from view. A few moments later Mike Ross was seen descending a Mezzanine ladder, not normally used by employees, after Peter Crouse and was heard saying to Mr. Crouse Don't worry Peter, I'll back you up, I saw you up there looking for dividers. At our Step 3 Meeting, when asked why he had gone to the Mezzanine, Mr. Ross stated he had previously observed Mr. Hatje descending the ladder. When Peter Crouse was interviewed at the scene he said he was sleeping on the job because he was ill. Mr. Ross's statement to Mr. Crouse was a deliberate attempt to cover up for Mr. Crouse. His act ammounted [sic] to an attempt to defraud the Company in it's (sic] investigation of a rule violation and was intentional.
The evidence of the complainant was that nobody argued any point that the Company was trying to make against me They might as well have never had the meeting. Nothing was said on my behalf. They should have given me a chance to explain. They didn't represent me. Because the Company knew how the Union felt about me, they went ahead and overstepped the boundary.
The complainant further complained about the Union's conduct at the meeting of March 4, 1984. This was a meeting held by the Union to determine whether the case ought to be processed to arbitration when the Company continued to refuac to reinstate the complainant. At the Union meeting, the complainant admits that he was given an opportunity to state his case before the membership. The complainant says that he was sent out of the room when George Teal and Ron Sheldon made submissions as to what directions the Union should take regarding his case. He said Mr. Crouse was also sent out at that time. However, he was called in to discover the result of the vote and was told that the membership had voted not to process his case to arbitration. He then says that he asked George Teal for advice. Mr. Teal was the Union's Staff Representative for that area. The complainant says that Mr. Teal said that he had no advice for him.
Regarding the January 10, 1984 grievance, the complainant says this involved his foreman's usurpation of his bargaining unit job by pulling out a retainer pool and replacing it. The complainant had lodged a grievance regarding this. The complainant alleges that the Union failed to process the grievance to receive a favourable or acceptable answer to the complainant. The complainant says he did not pursue the grievance any further himself because I though it was in my best interest at the time. I didn't realize what was happening.
In short, the complainant says that the Union discriminated against him by taking Mr. Crouse's case to arbitration but failing to take his own and that it acted in violation of the Act by failing to process the January 10, 1984 grievance to his satisfaction.
The Union called two witnesses to respond to the complainant's allegation. The first witness was Chris Anderson. He was present when the complainant and Mr. Crouse were confronted by management, Mr. Coote was present at Mr. Hatje's request because Mr. Hatje suspected someone sleeping on the job and wanted Mr. Coote, as the Union Representative, to be a witness. Mr. Anderson recalls the complainant following behind him, Mr. Coote and Mr. Hatje. However, when they came to the area of the latter, Mr. Ross separated from them. While the three were still talking, Mr. Crouse and the complainant came down the back ladder a few minutes later. Mr. Hatje confronted Mr. Crouse immediately and asked him if he was sleeping. Mr. Anderson says that Mr. Crouse responded by saying that he was tired, that he was not feeling well and was on medication and so was taking a little bit of a nap. At this point, Mr. Anderson says that the complainant stated that he would be a witness for Mr. Crouse to testify that he wasn't sleeping on the job and that he had seen Mr. Crouse going upstairs to get paper for the packing machine. Mr. Anderson says that Mr. Ross kept reiterating that he would be a witness for Mr. Crouse.
Mr. Anderson also testified regarding the January, 10, 1984 grievance. His recollection of the grievance was that a settlement was reached at Step 2 or 3 when the Company agreed that management would not do bargaining unit work on the floor. The Union considered this outcome satisfactory and did not pursue the grievance further.
George Teal also testified on behalf of the Union. He first explained what efforts were made on behalf of Mr. Crouse at the Step 3 grievance meeting with the Company. After relating this, he explained what he says happened at a similar meeting for the complainant. Mr. Teal said that at the outset they did not know why the complainant had been fired and they asked for the reasons to be given. That was when the list cited above in paragraph 12 was given to the Union. The Company indicated that they could not put up with him any longer. Further, the Company considered the complainant's willingness to lie on behalf of Mr. Crouse to be a culminating incident on January the 24th. Further, several members of the bargaining unit had come to management and asked that something be done about the complainant as a result of the incidents mentioned above. Mr. Teal says that he told the Company that even if they had established a culminating incident, they were not treating the complainant properly. The record showed warnings being given after suspensions and Mr. Teal says that he felt that the Company couldn't flop all over the place with regard to discipline. Mr. Teal says he also discussed the complainant's workmanship with the Company at the meeting and that the Company admitted that the grievor was a good worker. However, one member of management said that he could not have lying taking place in the work place. Mr. Teal says that he then asked the Company to consider reinstating the complainant. He says he felt the culminating incident would not hold up at an arbitration and thus asked for reinstatement. However, one week later, the Union was notified that the Company was not willing to reinstate the grievor.
Mr. Teal then explained that the complainant was sent a registered letter advising him of the Union meeting on March the 4th wherein his case would be considered for arbitration. It is interesting to note the similarities and differences in treatment given to Mr. Crouse's case as compared to the complainant's case at this meeting according to Mr. Teal. He explained that Mr. Crouse's case was taken first. The Local President read out the charges against Mr. Crouse. Mr. Crouse then told the members what had happened. The Executive made no recommendation as to whether to take the case to arbitration or not but indicated it would be left to the membership. At that point Mr. Crouse was asked to leave the room. The members in the room then asked Mr. Teal what he felt the chances were in the grievance. He told the membership that he felt that the case could be won but he didn't want to give any false hopes. He estimated the chances to be 50/50 or maybe better because Mr. Crouse had a good record. A vote was then held and the members voted 27 to 7 to send it to arbitration. Mr. Crouse was brought back into the room and told the results of the vote.
The membership then considered the complainant's case. Again, the President explained why the complainant was discharged. The complainant was asked to explain his situation. Mr. Teal says that he told the membership that he had been willing to be a witness for Mr. Crouse and was willing to say Mr. Crouse was not sleeping. The complainant continued by asking the members to support him but indicated to them that he believed that they would not support him because he was black. At that stage one of the members asked what a culminating incident is and Mr. Teal explained that it is when the Company builds up a case against a member. The complainant was then asked to leave the room. Again, the members asked Mr. Teal what his feelings were regarding this case. He told them that he did not feel that the Company could prove a culminating incident. But if they did, a sympathetic arbitrator would probably reinstate the complainant with a suspension because of the complainant's record. Mr. Teal indicated that he felt the incident of waking Mr. Crouse up would not justify a discharge. He also says that he asked the members to vote on the incident and not on the colour of the complainant. The members then voted 12 to 16 against sending the case to arbitration. The complainant was invited back into the room and advised of the results of the vote.
After the meeting, the complainant approached Mr. Teal in his office to ask what the Union now intended to do about his case. Mr. Teal says that he told the complainant that there was nothing more he or the Union could do now that the Local had voted. Mr. Teal says that he told the complainant that he could take the case further to his supervisor, Douglas Hart, or the the District Director, Dave Patterson. Further, he could take the case to other places such as the Labour Board, but that that would be his choice. The complainant denies this.
Finally, Mr. Teal explained that members are asked to leave the room during the vote on all cases like this because the votes are not held by secret ballot and it is felt that members would be intimidated in their vote if they felt the person concerned saw the vote. Thus, the subjects of the votes are always asked to leave the room during the vote. Further, it is not the Union's policy to release the vote count so that no member will be embarrassed.
The intervener called the Production Manager, Klaus Hatje, to testify. He explained the events of the early morning hours of January the 21st. Essentially, his story is completely consistent with that of Mr. Anderson on all relevant matters. The Board questioned him as to Mr. Teal's conduct on the complainant's behalf at the Step 3 grievance meeting in February of 1984. Mr. Hatje said that Mr. Teal argued as he usually does. He tried to minimize the scope of certain points. He went through every item, item by item. He tried to convince the Company that we should ignore certain items, that they should be expired. He asked the Company to take the dismissal back. He pushed hard to get the Company to retract the dismissal. Mr. Hatje estimates that the grievance meeting lasted approximately two hours.
In assessing all this evidence, this Board has to decide what evidence to rely upon where there is a conflict. While there were a number of minor factual conflicts between the complainant and the respondent's witnesses, the essential and relevant conflicts arise with regard to Mr. Teal's conduct at the Step 3 grievance meeting and the events of the Union meeting on March the 4th, and the meeting with Mr. Teal and Mr. Ross immediately thereafter. The Board must conclude that, having regard to the demeanour of the witnesses, their ability to recall, the internal consistency of the stories, and the consistency of the testimony given on behalf of the respondents and the intervener, the evidence of Messrs. Anderson, Teal and Hatje must be accepted over that of the complainant wherever there is a conflict.
The Decision
- In order for this complaint to succeed, the onus is on the complainant to establish on the balance of probability that the trade union acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith and thus contrary to section 68 of the Act. Section 68 states 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 of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
The function of the Board in determining whether section 68 has been violated is not to second guess the Union or substitute the Board's opinion as to what the Union ought to have done. The function of the Board has been set out in Ford Motor Co. of Canada, [1973] OLRB Rep. Oct. 519:
This Board does not decide cases on the basis of whether a mistake may have been made or whether there was negligence, nor is the standard based on what this Board might have done in a particular situation after having the leisure and time to reflect upon the merits. Rather, the standard must consider the persons who are performing the collective bargaining functions, the norms of the industrial community and the measure and solutions that have gained acceptance within that community.
In order to find arbitrariness, this Board would have to conclude that the Union failed to direct its mind to the merits of the complainant's grievances or failed to enquire into or act upon available evidence or conduct any meaningful investigation to obtain the information to justify its decision. Alternatively, arbitrariness could be established if the complainant could show that the Union acted on the basis of irrelevant factors or principles or displayed an attitude that was indifferent, capricious or non-caring towards the complainant. (See L T. E. Industries Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. July, 1001.)
To show bad faith, the complainant would have to establish hostility, ill will, dishonest dealing, an attempt to deceive or a refusal to process the grievances for sinister purposes. (See Chrysler Canada Ltd. [19791 OLRB Rep. July 618.)
The Board has set out the test for discrimination in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, [1978] OLRB Rep. Feb. 143 as follows:
The prohibition against a union acting in a manner that is discriminatory functions to prevent a union from distinguishing among members in the bargaining unit unless there are good reasons for doing so. To avoid acting in a manner that is discriminatory, the union requires, in general, that like situations be treated in a like manner and that neither particular favour nor disfavour befall any individual apart form the others unless justified by the circumstances. The duty does not make the union the guarantor for every aggrieved employee. Instead, the duty requires that the union consider the position of all its members and that it weigh the competing interests of minorities or individuals in arriving at its decisions.
With this background, we can now turn to the merits of the case. We shall deal first with the Union's conduct with regard to the complainant's discharge. The complainant's chief concern seems to be that the Union decided to take the case on behalf of Mr. Crouse to arbitration but denied the complainant the chance to go to arbitration. The complainant feels that this decision is discriminatory and arbitrary. However, the evidence establishes that, in arriving at this decision, the Union considered the statements made by the complainant, the allegations made by the Company, and Mr. Teal's explanation of the complainant's record and his chances of success at arbitration. It is to be remembered that Mr. Teal indicated his belief that an arbitration for the complainant would partially succeed and would likely result in the complainant being reinstated. Mr. Teal's advice was given with the benefit of his many years of experience in the field and, it can be said, that his assessment of the case was probably very accurate. However, despite this, the democratic process of the Union resulted in the decision not to proceed with arbitration. There is no evidence that this was motivated by bad faith or dishonesty or ill will. If that was the case, there is simply no evidence of that before this Board. The decision cannot be considered to be arbitrary because it was based upon a full consideration of all the factors of the case. While the complainant was treated differently than Mr. Crouse, it cannot be said that his situation was completely identical to that of Mr. Crouse in that their past records were quite different. Thus, there can be seen a logical and objective reason why the two cases were treated differently by the membership of the Union. As a result of this, this Board cannot conclude that the Union acted contrary to section 68 in deciding not to process the case to arbitration.
Working back from this, we must also examine the Union's conduct at the Step 3 grievance meeting. Although the complainant has the belief that nothing was done for him at that meeting, he did admit in cross-examination that something was said on his behalf by Mr. Teal. However, the evidence of Mr. Teal and Mr. Hatje convinced the Board that a great deal was done on behalf of the grievor at that meeting. Mr. Teal raised all the issues that one would expect of a responsible advocate at such a meeting on behalf of the complainant. Thus, it must be concluded that the complainant was fully and fairly represented at the Step 3 meeting by his Union.
Regarding the grievance of January the 10th, the complainant feels that the Union has not fulfilled its duty and that it did not process the case for him. However, the evidence of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hatje indicates that the grievance was resolved by management agreeing not to allow foremen to do bargaining unit work. This would have seemed to have been the purpose of the grievance in the first place. The Board fails to see what more the complainant could have wanted from the grievance and certainly, the complainant did not indicate anything further himself. It is in the interests of industrial relations that grievances be settled early and as expeditiously as possible. As a matter of good judgment and in the interests of sound industrial relations, a trade union should make reasonable efforts to settle grievances early in the process. (See Catherine Syme, [1983] OLRB Rep. May 775.) Since the purpose of this grievance was to notify the Company of the complainant's objection to management doing bargaining unit work, and since the result of the grievance was that management agreed to cease that practice at an early stage in the grievance procedure, we must conclude that the Union acted properly in settling the grievance with that agreement at the early stages. Thus, no violation of section 68 has been established.
Further, the complainant suggests that Mr. Teal's conduct after the Union meeting amounts to a violation of the Act. The complainant suggests that Mr. Teal's refusal to give him any advice as to what to do after the membership turned down the bid to go to arbitration is a failure in the Union's duty to properly represent him. As indicated above, the Board has concluded that Mr. Teal's evidence must be accepted over that of the complainant in the event of conflict. Thus, the Board must conclude as a matter of fact that Mr. Teal did indeed give the complainant advice as to what steps were available to him after the Union decided not to take his case to arbitration. Mr. Teal advised the complainant to approach Mr. Teal's superior or this Board. Whether or not a Union has a duty to advise a member as to his rights when the Union has decided not to champion those rights is an interesting question that need not be decided in this case because of the facts of the situation. But because the facts establish that Mr. Teal did indeed give the complainant the advice that he sought, there can be no finding of a violation of section 68 in this regard.
In closing, the Board feels compelled to comment on the sympathy it has for the complainant. The complainant had four years' seniority with the Company. One day before his termination, he was disabled by an industrial accident which still prevents him from obtaining gainful employment. His termination was prompted by his misguided attempts to assist a brother Union member. One can easily sympathize with his bewilderment and sense of unfairness as a result of the other member's case being taken to arbitration when his was not. However, the responsibility of this Board is to enforce section 68 of the Act in this case. Since none of the acts or alleged omissions of the Union amount to violations of this section of the Act, the complaint must be dismissed.