1292-00-U Ana Kesic, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, Responding Party v. Central Health Services, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 11, 2000
This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging violation of section 74 of the Act.
By letter to the Board dated August 10, 2000, the responding party asserts that the application does not disclose a prima facie case. In other words, it submits that even if everything the applicant states is assumed to be true, it is insufficient to prove a complaint under section 74. In particular, the responding party states that there are no specific allegations about how it failed to represent the applicant in respect of certain money allegedly owed to her by her employer. It further asserts that the mere alleged failure to provide the applicant with a copy of a collective agreement is not a breach of section 74. It has also offered an explanation as to why the applicant could not vote on certain union matters.
Section 74 states:
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.
In my view, the application does not comply with the Board’s Rules of Procedure that require an applicant to set out all of the material facts relied upon in support of the application.
The applicant is hereby directed to file with the Board (with a copy to the responding party) a reply to each of the assertions contained in the response filed by the responding party. The applicant’s submissions shall set out in detail how the union is alleged to have violated section 74. All of the material facts relied upon by the applicant must be stated, including particulars about who is alleged to have committed the acts complained of, and when these incidents are alleged to have occurred.
These submissions must be received by the Board and responding party no later than September 22, 2000, failing which the application will be deemed terminated.
If a reply is filed by the applicant, the Board will consider the matter further.
The parties should be aware that an application under section 74 may be decided by the Board solely on the basis of the written submissions of the parties, without a hearing or consultation.
The employer, Central Health Services, has responded that it cannot properly be made a responding party to a section 74 complaint. The Board agrees. Central Health Services is struck as a responding party.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board