Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1991] OLRB Rep. June 735
0832-91-U Robert James Mically Clock #2216, Complainant v. Board of Governors, Respondent
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Alternate Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and J. Redshaw.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 13, 1991
1This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer had contravened section 64 of the Act. Section 64 reads as follows:
- No employer or employers' organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers' organization shall participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union or contribute financial or other support to a trade union, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of his freedom to express his views so long as he does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.
2Section 64 is designed to protect the institutional rights of a trade union not the personal rights of individual employees. Indeed, the Board has held that a complaint alleging interference with the trade union must be brought by the trade union concerned and not an individual employee. (see T. I. A. Limousine Operators, [1979] OLRB Rep. Aug. 810, and Dufferin Aggregates, [1983] OLRB Rep. July 1031). This complaint is not only brought by an individual seeking to assert trade union rights, but, in addition, no where in the complaint is there any suggestion that the complainant has been discharged or discriminated against because of his trade union activity.
3It may be that the complainant has been dealt with "unjustly"; however, that is generally a matter to be pursued under the terms of any collective agreement by which he is bound. Unjust treatment, in itself, is not an unfair labour practice.
4For the foregoing reasons, this complaint is dismissed, because it does not demonstrate a prima facie case for relief. This dismissal is, however, without prejudice to the complainant's right to file a new complaint alleging a breach of a section applicable to him, provided that such complaint fully sets out the details of the Acts or omissions complained of. Similarly, nothing in this decision should be construed as foreclosing any right which the complainant may have to file a grievance under any collective agreement which may be applicable to him.