[1991] OLRB Rep. December 1353
2777-87-G United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27, Applicant v. Ellis Don Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Michael Bendel, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. N. Fraser and B. L. Armstrong.
APPEARANCES: Harold F. Caley and Dory Smith for the applicant; Bruce W. Binning and Paul Richer for the respondent; David Jones for the grievor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 19, 1991
This is a referral of a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.
The grievance relates to the respondent's termination of the employment of Mr. Eric Williams ("the grievor") in October 1987. In a decision dated April 14, 1988, this panel of the Board decided (with Mr. Fraser dissenting) to allow the grievance. Paragraph 25 of the decision reads as follows:
The grievor is therefore entitled to a remedy for the discharge without just cause that he suffered. We order that he be re-instated in employment with full compensation for lost pay and benefits. We will remain seized of this matter in the event that the parties are unable to agree on the amount of compensation due to the grievor.
By letters dated July 29 and October 25, 1991, Mr. Jones, counsel for the grievor, requested the Board to reconvene to determine the amount of compensation to which the grievor was entitled.
In accordance with this request, the Board held a new hearing. At the hearing, counsel for the applicant noted that the referral of this matter back to the Board had been made by counsel for the grievor, and not by or on behalf of the applicant. The applicant, he stated, took the position that it was not appropriate to bring this matter back before the Board. Counsel for the respondent objected to this matter being brought back before the Board by the grievor. The legislation and the case-law, he argued, established that the parties to a grievance were the union and the employer. It was only in exceptional circumstances, according to counsel, that a grievor has standing as a party in a grievance arbitration. Where the Board has remained seized of an application for the purpose of deciding the amount of compensation due, only a party can bring the matter back on for hearing before the Board.
After hearing counsel, the Board gave an oral decision dismissing the grievor's request that the Board determine the amount of compensation due to him. In the Board's view, only the union and the employer have standing on a section 124 application (subject to possible exceptions that are not relevant here). It is not open to the grievor in this case to seek a ruling from the Board on the quantum of the compensation to which he is entitled.