[1987] OLRB Rep. March 365
2824-85-U Brian Fry, Complainant v. Teamsters Union Local 419, Respondent
BEFORE: Patricia Hughes, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Glen Naphtali, David Doucette and Joshua Prasad for the complainant; B. Chercover, F. Grimaldi and D. Power for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 23, 1987
The complainant alleges that the respondent union has contravened section 68 of the Labour Relations Act ("the Act") by requiring part-time and full-time employees to pay union dues according to the same formula. The result, says the complainant, is that the part-time employees pay proportionately more of their wages as dues than do the full-time employees.
Attached to the complaint is a letter delivered, according to the complaint, "by the steward (Doug Powers) to the head of the local union". The letter sets out subsections 72(5) and (6) (providing that all employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to participate in strike or ratification votes) and adds:
In the past, no attempt has been made to extend these privileges to part-time employees. The union could demonstrate good faith in its' [sic] relations with it's [sicl members by;
(1) allowing all members to vote on union decisions including strike votes; ratification of contracts and election of union officials.
and
(2) revising the payment of union dues to reflect the employees [sic] income.
There is no allegation in the complaint itself that the union has prevented the part-time employees from participating in any strike or ratification vote held by the union, nor was this issue raised by the complainant's representative in his clear and concise oral submissions before me. Counsel for the union stated that the position of the union is that all employees, including part-time employees, have the right to participate in strike and ratification votes. The respondent's reply states:
The respondent acknowledges Sections 72(5) & (6) of the Labour Relations Act and undertakes to comply with same.
Thus the only matter actually before me is the fairness of the dues structure established by the union's constitution. There are no allegations that the union has failed to represent these employees in their relations with their employer in accordance with the requirements of section 68 of the Act.
The complainant's representative informed the Board that the part-time workers had attempted to have the dues structure changed and, having failed to convince the union officials and/or other members of the union and bargaining unit to make changes, had come to the Board in the hope it could help them. The Board has stated on many occasions that its jurisdiction under either section 68 or 69 does not extend to monitoring the union's internal processes: Sylvia Colalillo, [1982] OLRB Rep. July 1066; Ontario Hydro, [1980] OLRB Rep. July 1039; L. M. L. Foods Inc., [1985] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1252. There are some "exceptions" to this general principle, however. The Board has indicated that it may be prepared to entertain allegations with respect to the union's internal practices where intimidation or coercion is involved (see Frank Manoni, [1981] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1775), but there are no such allegations here. Similarly, an allegation of manipulation of the union's own practices for the purpose of restricting access of part-time workers to the bargaining process (see The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, [1983] OLRB Rep. May 781) or of misrepresentation by the union of its dealings with the employer with respect to part-time workers (see Gerald Lecuyer, [1985] OLRB Rep. July 1099) may require rebuttal by the union, but such conduct is not at issue here.
The union's dues structure by itself is a matter internal to the union. Accordingly, whether the structure is a "fair" one with respect to any particular group of employees is a question outside the scope of section 68 of the Act.
Accordingly, I ruled orally that this complaint does not establish a prima facie case under section 68 of the Act and is therefore dismissed.