0982-00-U Lucia Alciné, Applicant v. OPSEU, Responding Party v. Personal Choice Independent Living, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 11, 2000
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). The applicant alleges that OPSEU (the “union”) has violated section 74 of the Act. Section 74 reads:
- A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
2Both the union and the employer have responded. The union has requested that the application be dismissed for failure to make out a prima facie or arguable breach of the Act.
3In considering whether an applicant has made out a prima facie or arguable case, the Board treats all the allegations made as provable and proved and does not consider what is alleged in the responses. The Board will dismiss an application without further inquiry where it is satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood that a violation of the Act can be established (see for example Elizabeth Balanyk [1987] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1121).
4The applicant alleges that she was terminated, and paid 8 weeks of termination pay, but does not know why. She alleges that the union has not helped her and acted as a double agent. The applicant has attached documents which she believes sets out her case. The documents indicate that the applicant was suspended in February 2000 from her employment. The union filed a grievance. On March 2, 2000 the applicant was placed on paid leave pending a resolution of what are alleged to be performance issues.
5On March 14, 2000 the applicant signed a release in return for receiving 8 weeks termination pay. A representative from the union witnessed the release.
6The applicant alleges that it is illegal for the employer to require employees to sign releases, and she has decided to fight what she thinks are unfair working conditions at her former workplace.
7First, a complaint pursuant to section 74 must relate to the conduct of a union. The applicant has made no specific allegations that would cause the Board to enquire into the conduct of the union, and for that reason alone, this application must be dismissed.
8Second, the Board is not empowered to look into general allegations of employer unfairness. If an employee believes discipline is unfair, he or she can file a grievance. But in this case, it appears from the documents relied on by the applicant that she agreed to accept 8 weeks wages in return for ending her employment and agreeing to bring no legal action against the employer. There is nothing unlawful in such an agreement. It is not open to the applicant to seek to ignore the deal and bring legal action against the employer.
9This application is dismissed.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board