Roland Greve v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 128
File No.: 1164-00-U Date: October 30, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between: Roland Greve, Applicant v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 128, Responding Party.
Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1On September 26, 2000, the applicant filed submissions in response to the Board’s decision of August 31, 2000 directing him to file a written statement of all the material facts upon which he relies in support of his allegation that the responding party (“the union”) breached its duty of fair representation when it refused to entertain his complaint about the employer making pension deductions from his gross pay.
2The applicant claims in his September 26 submissions that the union would have terminated his employment had he complained about eductions from his pay. He also claims that his pension deductions are being put into a “slush fund”, and furthermore, that an individual by the name of “Mr. Powers” read and then threw his grievances concerning pension deductions into a wastepaper basket and suggested that he speak to a representative with the union’s pension and welfare fund. (The applicant apparently did get in touch with that union representative). Finally, the applicant claims that he got no answers to his query to a person or persons unspecified as to why members of the Ironworkers union, who he says worked on the same site as the applicant, did not have pension deductions taken from their pay.
3The union filed a reply to the applicant’s submissions. The union states that the allegation the union would have terminated the applicant had he complained is inaccurate and irrelevant. The union denies the allegation that the pension remittances are paid into a “slush fund”.
4As the Board noted in International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, [1999] O.L.R.D. No. 1492, in dealing with a motion to dismiss an application for disclosing no prima facie case, the allegations contained in the application are assumed to be true. Even assuming all the applicant’s allegations in this complaint to be provable, no violation of section 74 could be made out based on those allegations. The submissions of September 26, 2000 did not advance the Board’s understanding of the application in any measurable way. The applicant has not demonstrated how any of the union’s actions or inaction could be described as arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. The allegation of a “slush fund” appears to have no relation to the applicant’s complaint about pension deductions being taken from his gross pay, and in any event, it is completely unclear what the applicant means by a “slush fund” or what role he claims the union is playing in relation to that alleged “slush fund”. The applicant’s claim that the union would have terminated the applicant had he raised a complaint is not so much an allegation as it is speculation without supporting facts. The union has no obligation to reply to the applicant’s questions about the benefits enjoyed by members of another trade union. Finally, the allegedly curt and arguably disrespectful manner in which the applicant’s grievance was dealt with is not, on its face, a breach of section 74.
5The applicant has failed to assert any material facts which could give rise to a finding of a violation of section 74 of the Act.
6The application is dismissed.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board