2541-98-U Gary Spracklin, Applicant v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, Responding Party v. Toronto Transit Commission, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 24, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 c. 1, as amended (“the Act”) in which the applicant claims that the responding trade union (“the union”) has violated section 74 of the Act.
2There have been several previous decisions in this matter. The applicant claims the union violated the Act when it decided to withdraw his grievance following a preliminary award from the arbitrator. The applicant had been discharged by the intervenor (“the employer”). The union filed a grievance on the applicant’s behalf challenging the dismissal. The arbitrator was required to rule upon the nature of the employer’s discretion when it dismissed the applicant. The arbitrator’s ruling was that the employer was not subject to a just cause standard, and that it could treat the applicant’s employment as if he were a probationary employee. The applicant’s limited employment status was the consequence of his having been reinstated previously in a last chance agreement, following his earlier termination. This meant that the employer was limited only by the obligation not to act in a manner which was discriminatory, in bad faith or arbitrary.
3The union considered the prospects of success of pursuing the applicant’s grievance in the face of the arbitrator’s ruling. It was not satisfied that it could establish that the employer had breached the relatively low standard it was obliged to meet in respect of the applicant’s termination. The applicant’s claim is that the union’s decision not to pursue his grievance violates its statutory obligation to him under section 74 of the Act.
4The applicant provides entirely insufficient particulars of his claim, nor does he provide material facts which provide a basis for his claim that the union has breached the Act. In its present form it does not disclose a sufficient basis to establish a prima facie case that the union has violated the Act. The application is therefore dismissed.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board