Ontario Labour Relations Board
2590-99-U Barbara Horn, Applicant v. United Steelworkers of America and its Local 260, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 9, 2000
1This is an application pursuant to section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"). The applicant alleges the trade union is not acting in her best interest and is therefore in violation of section 74.
2Based on the applicant's pleadings it appears the applicant was reinstated on a last chance basis after the union filed a grievance on her behalf with respect to her termination. One of the conditions of reinstatement is a 15 months monitoring period during which time the applicant states she can not be late or take any time off. The applicant indicated she was terminated in November 1998 for excessive time off.
3The applicant alleges she was advised by the union that "breach of this contract will result in my immediate dismissal and the union will not represent me in the matter." The applicant goes on to state "I feel the union is not acting in my best interest and therefore is in violation of section 74 of the labour relations act."
4The applicant alleges the union failed to bring forward certain hours of work issues at the arbitration hearing and asserts had the arbitrator been aware of this information she would have been rehired without the monitoring period and possibly might have received compensation for the time lost.
5The applicant did not provide the Board with a copy of the arbitration award. The applicant expressed concern that during the monitoring period she cannot take time off or be late. The applicant submits it does not allow for situations beyond her control such as car break-down or bad weather.
6The remedy the applicant requests is for the "Board to order that the arbitrator in my case be able to hear the hours of work issue and make a decision based on all the facts."
7The trade union submits that it complied with its statutory obligations in respect of the applicant and requests that this matter be dismissed without a hearing.
8The applicant is not satisfied with her conditional reinstatement. There is nothing in the pleadings that would indicate the relevance of the hours of work issue to the applicants termination and subsequent reinstatement. The trade union pursued a grievance on behalf of the applicant. The applicant was reinstated albeit with conditions that the applicant does not like. The allegation with respect to what the trade union would do or not do in the event of a breach of the "contract" is premature and presumably would to some extent depend on the terms of the reinstatement.
9In the absence of any other allegations, the conduct of the union described in the application would not if proven, amount to a breach of section 74. For these reasons this application is hereby dismissed. This dismissal is without prejudice to the applicant's right to file any subsequent application.
"Inge M. Stamp"
for the Board