3439-99-U Cynthia Gjuric, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, Responding Party.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 26, 2000
1The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: “Service Employees International Union, Local 204”.
2This matter is an application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). Section 74 provides as follows:
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.
3Section 74 cannot be violated by an employer and accordingly St. Micheals Wellesley Central Site [sic] is not properly named as a responding party. St. Micheals Wellesley Central Site has not filed any materials such that it is not appropriate to formally list it as an intervenor. Accordingly, St. Micheals Wellesley Central Site is hereby removed from the style of cause. Should St. Michaels Hospital, Wellesley Central Site wish to participate in this matter, it is required to complete a Form A-30 and indicate its desire to intervene in the proceeding. Further, the style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party “Service Employees International Union, Local 204”.
4Accepting all of the facts as set out in the application to be true, the factual basis for the complaint is that the Service Employees International Union, Local 204 (the “union”) and St. Michaels Hospital, Wellesley Central Site (the “employer”) have entered into an agreement pursuant to which temporary full-time vacancies are filled by part-time employees on a rotational basis and not by the senior qualified applicant as per the collective agreement. The agreement cannot be shown to the applicant as it is a verbal one and has not been approved by the individuals affected. The applicant does not assert that she is being subjected to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment or that the union is acting in bad faith.
5On the facts as asserted, there is nothing for the Board to enquire into. Unions and employers are free to enter into agreements that have the effect of modifying the terms of the collective agreement. There is no requirement, when doing so, for the union to obtain the agreement of the individuals affected. Union’s will often reach agreements that benefit the membership at large but not necessarily every single affected member.
6Section 74 is only concerned with union conduct that, vis a vis the complainant, is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. No such allegation has been made in the instant case.
7Accordingly, the applicant is hereby directed to deliver to the union and file with the Board, no later than May 19, 2000, submissions setting out why this matter ought not to be dismissed on the basis that it does not set out facts that constitute a violation of section 74. In the event such submissions are not received, this matter will be deemed to be terminated.
8I remain seized for the sole purpose of considering any submissions filed by the applicant in accordance with the foregoing paragraph.
“D. L. Gee”
for the Board