Ian Price v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 2413
1993-00-U Ian Price, Applicant v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 2413, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Gail Misra, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 20, 2000
This is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging that the responding party has violated section 74 of the Act.
The responding party (the “union”) had indicated to the Board that this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (“CIRB”), and that the Board is therefore without jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Board (differently constituted), in a decision dated October 18, 2000, directed the applicant to respond to the union’s contention. On November 15, 2000 the Board received the applicant’s response in which he simply asserts that he disputes the union’s assertion.
The union’s October 11, 2000 letter to the Board outlines the scope clause of its collective agreement with Ogden Ground Services, the applicant’s employer. Article 2.01 states:
Scope of Agreement
The Company recognizes the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 2413 as the sole collective bargaining agent for those employees coming within the scope of the certification (file number 5553499) issued by the Canada Labour Relations Board who are employed by the Company at Lester B. Pearson International Airport Toronto, Ontario and Vancouver International Airport. The parties shall bargain hereafter on a location basis as new work is obtained.
The union indicated that it had been certified federally for many years and had a long history of conducting negotiations, ratifications, strike votes, and other matters under the aegis of the Canada Labour Code.
Having reviewed Mr. Price’s complaint and supporting documents it is obvious that he works at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport, that he works for Ogden Ground Services, and that the Greater Toronto Airport Authority was involved in revoking Mr. Price’s security pass to the airport at some point. Despite having had the opportunity to provide the Board with the basis upon which he believes his employment relations are governed by provincial rather than federal statutes, he has failed to do so.
The Board is satisfied that the applicant’s employer is a business subject to federal regulation for labour relations purposes. Accordingly, this Board has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The applicant’s rights, if any, are under federal labour legislation. This application is therefore dismissed.
“Gail Misra”
for the Board