1890-00-U Sergio Pantarotto, Applicant v. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Local 1891, Responding Party v. Marel Contractors Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 13, 2000
This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch.1 (the "Act") in which the applicant alleges that his bargaining agent has violated the duty of fair representation set out in section 74 of the Act. The responding party and the intervenor have both asked the Board to dismiss this application on the basis that it does not disclose a prima facie case, and on various other bases.
The Board will not deal in a preliminary fashion with the issues raised in paragraphs 12(c)(ii), and (iv) of the response. These are matters properly left to the panel, if any, which hears the merits of the application. The one issue which the Board will deal with at this point is that articulated in the intervention: “The applicant is not an employee in the bargaining unit and the intervenor is not the employer as contemplated in paragraph 3(a) of the application under section 74 of the Act”.
The Board directs that the applicant address the issue of whether the facts as alleged in the application could, if proven, make out a case for a finding of a violation of section 74. Submissions are to be filed with the Board and delivered to the other parties on or before January 9, 2001. The responding party and the intervenor are directed to file and deliver their submissions in response on or before January 19, 2001. Any final response by the applicant shall be filed and delivered on or before January 25, 2001.
In the absence of some clear authority that the Board can govern matters of professional conduct of barristers and solicitors appearing before the Board, the Board will not deal with the issue raised by counsel for the applicant with respect to the propriety of counsel for the responding party acting for it in this application. Certainly at this stage of the proceedings, the issue is one of the legal sufficiency of the applicant’s pleadings. This in itself does not raise issues of confidentiality (assuming that the applicant rather than his union was the client of counsel’s firm). If the applicant wishes to pursue this matter with the Board at a later date, the Board’s first concern is its jurisdiction to determine issues that go beyond the conduct of counsel before the Board.
I am seized of this application for the purposes of determining this preliminary issue.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board