[1990] OLRB Rep. June 647
2899-89-U Local Lodge 2511 and District Lodge 717, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Complainant v. Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Michael Bendel, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
APPEARANCES: Joseph Atkinson for the complainant; W. A. Treleaven for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 5, 1990
- This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, in which it is alleged that the respondent has violated section 43 of the Act. Section 43 reads as follows:
43.-(1) Except in the construction industry and subject to section 47, where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union, forthwith.
(2) In subsection (1), "regular union dues" means,
(a) in the case of an employee who is a member of the trade union, the dues uniformly and regularly paid by a member of the trade union in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the trade union; and
(b) in the case of an employee who is not a member of the trade union, the dues referred to in clause (a), excluding any amount in respect of pension, superannuation, sickness insurance or any other benefit available only to members of the trade union.
The complainant alleges that the respondent has failed to remit to it dues that have been deducted from employees' pay pursuant to a collective agreement. The respondent claims, among other things, that the collective agreement permits employees to revoke their authorization for dues deductions, and that the employees in the unit, who have certain disagreements with the complainant, have all revoked their authorizations. In written submissions filed with the Board, the respondent has argued that the real dispute is between the complainant and the employees, and that the employees should therefore be given notice of these proceedings.
The complainant had referred a grievance on this issue to arbitration. The grievance was settled, however, with the assistance of a grievance settlement officer from the Ministry of Labour, on the agreement of the parties that the dispute would be submitted as a complaint to the Board.
At the hearing, the Board asked the parties to address the question whether it had jurisdiction under the Act to deal with this complaint. The parties stated that they had agreed to the settlement of the grievance on the basis that it would be brought before the Board.
The Board rendered an oral decision at the hearing dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and stated that a written decision would follow.
The obligation created by section 43 of the Act is the obligation to include an appropriate dues deduction provision in collective agreements. It does not, however, create the further obligation to comply with dues deduction provisions. Other sections of the Act do that. Section 50 of the Act, in particular, requires the parties to a collective agreement to observe its terms, and section 44 indicates that arbitration is the proper mechanism for resolving disputes about compliance with collective agreements. This dispute between the parties has to do with the interpretation or application of the collective agreement, and falls squarely within section 44 of the Act. Except in the construction industry, where special provisions apply, the Board has no jurisdiction to act as a grievance arbitration board.
It is irrelevant that the parties have agreed that the Board should deal with this dispute. The Board is a creature of statute and its jurisdiction is limited to those types of disputes assigned to it by statute. Its statutory mandate does not empower it to resolve whatever type of labour dispute the parties might have agreed to refer to it. Its jurisdiction cannot be expanded by the parties' agreement.
It was for these reasons that we decided that this complaint was not within the Board's jurisdiction and had to be dismissed.