0841-99-U Catherine Hector, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party v. Montage Support Services, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Catherine Hector and Rudolph Clarke for the applicant; Richard Blair, Lester Yearwood and Garner Liverpool for the responding party; Valerie Nicoll and Robert Morassutti for the intervenor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 20, 2000
This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act (“the Act”) alleging a breach of section 74 of the Act which came before the Board for hearing on January 14, 2000. At that hearing, the Board made the following oral ruling:
There are three preliminary issues which have been raised in this application. The first is whether the matter ought to be dismissed because the union is prepared to agree to hold a meeting with the applicant, which is the only remedy the applicant seeks in her application. On that point, the union is not prepared to agree now to the content of that meeting.
In my view, there is sufficient leeway in the Board’s Rules of practice that would allow the application to succeed on this point. In my view, it was evident from the application that the words “meeting with the union” actually meant meeting with the union to discuss any settlement and the possible revocation of that settlement. Since the union is not prepared to have that kind of meeting, I am not prepared to dismiss the application on that basis.
The second issue can be briefly stated as “due to lack of particularity and otherwise, does the application disclose a prima facie case for a breach of settlement”? In considering this issue, I must point out that proceedings before the Board are legal proceedings. Parties can choose to retain a lawyer or not
in proceedings before the Board, but the Board does not give special consideration for parties that choose not to retain a lawyer.
I have carefully reviewed the attachment to the application. The application, including the attachment, is not pleaded with the particularity required by the Board’s Rules. More importantly, the application as pleaded, even if I accept every fact as being true, does not disclose a breach of the Act. The kind of pressure referred to in the application is completely appropriate in labour relations, even if it is the union doing the pressuring.
The union cannot take every grievance to arbitration. It is entitled to explain to the grievor what the consequences are of proceeding to arbitration. All of the allegations pleaded in the application are an accurate reflection of the possible consequences of proceeding to arbitration. The applicant does not allege that the union refused the applicant an opportunity to consider the settlement. Settlements are critical to the labour relations process. This application does not disclose the kind of facts which could possibly cause the Board to overturn a settlement because of inappropriate pressure.
Finally, in my view, this is also not the kind of case which the Board ought to inquire into because there is no labour relations purpose for doing so. Even if I were to order a meeting, and were to order that the parties discuss the settlement, it is extremely unlikely that the applicant would ever get what she wants.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board