Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3107-89-U Date: 1990-12-20 Citation: [1990] OLRB Rep. December 1238
Everette Chapelle, Complainant v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, Respondent v. Toronto Transit Commission Wheel Trans Department, Intervener
Before: Robert Herman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and B. L. Armstrong.
Appearances: Everette Chapelle on his own behalf; L. C. Arnold and R. Jones for the respondent; J. Lynn Thomson for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is a complaint filed pursuant to the provisions of section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, in which the complainant alleged that the respondent union breached sections 68 and 89(7) of the Act, and the intervener employer sections 70 and 80 of the Act.
2In a prior decision, dated June 20, 1990, the Board dismissed the complaint insofar as it sought to rely upon the provisions of sections 70 and 80 of the Act. The alleged breaches of sections 68 and 89(7) of the Act were not dealt with by the Board at the first hearing date.
3Having regard to the submissions of the parties, the Toronto Transit Commission Wheel Trans Department is hereby made an intervener to these proceedings.
4With respect to the alleged breach of section 89(7) of the Act by the respondent union, in response to a request for particulars, the complainant Mr. Chapelle orally provided particulars at the hearing on August 21, 1990. In a prior Board proceeding (Board proceeding No. 0925-86-U) Minutes of Settlement were entered into between the complainant and the union and the complainant's employer at the time, All Way Transportation. One of the terms of that settlement was that the respondent union "agrees to provide the complainant with a written explanation in the event it refuses to proceed with a grievance initiated by the complainant." Mr. Chapelle alleges that the union has breached section 89(7) of the Act in that it has on certain specified occasions not provided the written explanation for why it refused to proceed with a grievance he initiated. Mr. Chapelle identified the circumstances in which the union had not provided the required written explanation as follows:
(1) The grievance leading to the instant section 68 complaint.
(2) On or about November 25, 1986, Mr. Chapelle was approximately fifteen minutes late for work, and punched his time card at 6.15 a.m. He was suspended for this and wished to file a grievance. He was not allowed to, and was refused by Wayne Clearwater, the Vice-President of the union at the time.
(3) On or about November 30, 1986, Mr. Chapelle met with Earle Fitzsimmons to discuss the matter, and he was told that Mr. Fitzsimmons had spoken to Mr. Clearwater and Mr. Fitzsimmons would not accept the grievance.
5Although Mr. Chapelle submitted that he never got a written explanation from the union when it rejected his many grievances, when directed by the Board to indicate the specific grievances when this occurred, he identified only those set out immediately above.
6As the particulars of the section 89(7) complaint were provided for the first time at the hearing on August 21, 1990, the respondent union sought an adjournment in order to investigate the matter. Over the objection of Mr. Chapelle, the Board indicated it would not deal forthwith with the complaint under section 89(7), but would grant an adjournment in order to enable the respondent and intervener an opportunity to investigate the matter. It further ruled that the section 89(7) complaint would be restricted to those particulars provided orally by Mr. Chapelle and those, if any, contained in the written materials filed to date.
7We turn now to consider the section 68 complaint. Mr. Chapelle complains that the union failed to assist him with his discharge grievance, and failed to take his grievance to arbitration. By way of remedial relief, Mr. Chapelle asks that the Board direct that his grievance proceed to arbitration, and that he be reimbursed for all damages he has suffered as a result of the union's breach, including wages, benefits, reinstatement of seniority, and any other appropriate damages.
8In a preliminary objection, the employer argues that the propriety of Mr. Chapelle's discharge has already been litigated, in Board proceeding 0815-89-OH, a complaint pursuant to section 24(1) of the