Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between: Victor St. Pierre, Complainant, v. The United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO-CLC, 5417, Respondent
Before: Ian C. Springate, Alternate Chairman, and Board Members J. P. Wilson and H. Kobryn.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 27, 1986
1This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act of Ontario which alleges that the respondent trade union has violated sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Act. The complainant is employed by Rio Algom Limited at Elliot Lake. His complaint relates to his employment with Rio Algom Limited, and the manner in which the respondent trade union has represented him in his employment with Rio Algom Limited.
2It is our understanding that Rio Algom Limited's operations at Elliot Lake involve the mining of uranium. In Pronto Uranium Mines Ltd. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956), 1956 CanLII 153 (ON HCJ), 5 D.L.R. (2d) 342, 56 CLLC 15,293 (Ont. H.C.) it was held that the mining and concentrating of uranium ore falls within federal jurisdiction. In the result, the Court quashed certain decisions of this Board purporting to relate to employees engaged in the mining and concentrating of uranium ore. The reasoning of the Pronto Uranium Mines Ltd. case appears to be applicable to these proceedings. Accordingly, we are led to conclude that this Board lacks jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the instant complaint.
3Section 71 of the Board's Rules of Procedure provides as follows:
71 .-( I) 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.
4In that this Board appears to lack jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of this complaint, the Board hereby dismisses the complaint pursuant to section 71(1) of the Rules of Procedure.