Ontario Labour Relations Board
1880-00-U Terex Bartell Limited, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union (CAW-Canada), Responding Party.
1922-00-U Francis Naraine and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 252, Applicants v. Terex Bartell Limited, Responding Party.
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 21, 2000
1Board File No. 1880-00-U is an unfair labour practice complaint brought by the employer. Board File No. 1922-00-U is an unfair labour practice complaint brought by both the trade union and an individual employee, Francis Naraine. The latter application asserts that the employer’s decision to terminate Mr. Naraine’s employment was motivated, at least in part, in response to his union activity.
2By letter dated October 19, 2000 the trade union advised the Board that the CAW-Canada sought leave to withdraw its complaint as the “parties” had reached a settlement. By letter dated October 24, 2000 the employer advised that the “parties” had resolved these matters as part of their settlement of a first collective agreement. That settlement indicates that “both parties agree to withdraw their complaints to the OLRB” and further indicates that a good will payment will be made to Mr. Naraine.
3Neither of these letters makes any reference to Mr. Naraine’s standing as a party to the complaint in Board File No. 1922-00-U. The trade union’s letter of October 19, 2000 specifically advises that it is the trade union which seeks leave to withdraw. That is ineffective as a complete withdrawal of the application as there is more than one applicant. Through a Labour Relations Officer the Board sought to obtain clarification from the trade union. By letter dated December 6, 2000 the trade union now advises that Mr. Naraine does not wish to withdraw his application and that the trade union will no longer be representing him in the matter. It does not appear that the trade union has forwarded that advice to the employer.
4The settlement of the first collective agreement appears to have involved an agreement with respect to these applications. More to the point, the settlement of one application appears to have been contingent on the settlement of both. In the circumstances, I must deny leave to withdraw in Board File No. 1922-00-U given that one party appears to be asserting a continuing interest. Given that result, I am inclined for the moment to also deny leave to withdraw the matter in Board File No. 1880-00-U.
5Mr. Naraine is hereby directed to file with the Board a statement of intention with respect to his application in Board File No. 1922-00-U. Such statement should include his position on whether he intends to pursue the application, whether or not he has accepted the benefit of the settlement obtained by the trade union, and any other information that he feels is pertinent to the Board’s consideration. Mr. Naraine ought to be aware that the Board has a discretion as to whether or not to proceed with an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. Those representations must be in writing and filed with the Board by no later than January 12, 2001. Mr. Naraine must also send copies by the same date to the trade union and to the employer. Any response from the trade union and/or the employer must be filed in writing with the Board, with a copy to Mr. Naraine by no later than January 19, 2001. Any reply by Mr. Naraine must be filed (with copies to the other parties) by no later than January 23, 2001.
6Once the deadline for representations has passed, the Board will review the matter based on the material then before it.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board