[1990] OLRB Rep. October 1041
1559-90-U Irene Gauthier, Complainant v. I.W.A.- Canada Local 1-1000, Respondent
BEFORE: Robert D. Howe, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 27, 1990
This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act in which the complainant alleges that she has been dealt with by the respondent contrary to section 68 of the Act. The gist of her complaint is that on or about July 6,1990, Margaret Robitaille, the respondent's Chairperson, refused to provide "Strike Pay" to the complainant when distributing "Strike Pay" cheques to other members of the respondent. (It appears from the complaint that the reasons given for the refusal were that the complainant "drove scabs around" and "didn't picket".) The relief sought by the complainant is "that she be paid 2 weeks additional 'Strike Pay' (equaling $200.00) that was paid to other Union Members following Strike."
Section 68 of the Act provides:
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.
- It is well established in the Board's jurisprudence that for the Board to find a breach of section 68 of the Act, the union's impugned acts or omissions must involve the representation of a bargaining unit employee in relation to his or her employer. See, for example, Angelo Moro, [1983] OLRB Rep. Aug. 1354, at paragraph 3, in which the Board wrote, in part, as follows:
The Board has consistently ruled in past decisions, that the duty of fair representation in section 68 is concerned only with the representation by a trade union of an employee in relation to his or her employer.
- The Board has only such jurisdiction as has been conferred upon it by statute. It has no authority under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act (or any other statutory provision) to undertake a general watchdog role in respect of internal trade union processes. As the Board observed in Arthur Joseph Roberts, [1974] OLRB Rep. March 169, at paragraph 8:
the propriety of a trade union's behaviour vis-a-vis its members is governed by its constitution and by-laws and the procedural remedies provided therein. And recourse must be made by an aggrieved member to the governing rules provided under the constitution for relief. The safeguard provided by the controlling supervision of the Courts [is] his assurance that these rules will be implemented fairly and impartially.
See also Ronald Lewszoniuk, [1984] OLRB Rep. Jan. 48; Angelo Moro, supra; Sylvia Colalillo, [1982] OLRB Rep. July 1066; and Frank Manoni, [1981] OLRB Rep. Dec. 1775.
Complaints concerning removal from union office (Arthur Joseph Roberts), eligibility to run for union steward (Sylvia Colalillo), and irregularities in the administration of union pension funds (Angelo Moro) have all been treated as purely internal union affairs beyond the ambit of the Board's jurisdiction under section 68 of the Act. A trade union's refusal to provide "Strike Pay" to a member is also an internal matter which does not involve the representation of a bargaining unit employee in relation to his or her employer. Thus, it does not fall within the scope of the Board's jurisdiction under section 68 of the Act. Consequently, assuming that all of the allegations contained in the complaint are true and provable, the Board would not have the power to grant the relief requested by the complainant.
For the foregoing reasons, this complaint is hereby dismissed pursuant to section 71(1) of the Board's Rules to Procedure, which provides:
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.