Ontario Labour Relations Board
2156-99-U Emmanuel Abegunrin , Applicant v. CUPE Local 1 and John Camilleri and Linvor Mckoy and Bruno Silano, Responding Parties v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Emmanuel Abegunrin appearing on his behalf; Doug Lefaive and Vic Demelo for CUPE Local One, E. C. Carla Zabek, Sharon Hall and Glen Rawson for Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 10, 2000
The applicant claims that the responding party trade union has breached section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
A consultation was held on May 4, 2000.
The applicant advised at that time that, in his view, the union had violated the Act by not processing his grievance (which claimed reimbursement of certain tution fees) in a timely fashion.
By way of remedy he was seeking:
that, in the future, the union be directed to process his grievances in a timely fashion;
that the union be directed to cease its “special” treatment of him;
compensation for the time he has spent in this consultation; and
that the union be held “accountable” for lying [this is a reference to a factual dispute as to which union representative received the applicant’s initial request to file a grievance].
- After hearing and considering the representations of the parties, I delivered the following oral ruling:
Having heard the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that this application ought to be and hereby is dismissed.
The applicant claims that the responding party trade union failed to process his grievance claiming reimbursement of tuition fees in a timely manner.
It is not disputed, however, that all such claims as they may have existed at the time this application was filed have been satisfied (whether or not those claims properly arise under the terms of the collective agreement).
In those circumstances, I see no labour relations purpose or, indeed, any purpose which could possibly be served by any further processing of the grievance in question.
The applicant seeks that in the future his grievances be processed in a timely fashion.
On the basis of what is before me, I see no basis to conclude that did not happen in the instant case. It is therefore unnecessary and inappropriate (even had I been otherwise persuaded that there was some violation of the Act), for me to address future events. Whatever may be their subject matter, progress or status, any other outstanding matters the applicant has before this Board, are unaffected by this ruling. However, there is nothing in the instant file which points to any conclusion of “special” or discriminatory treatment of the applicant by the union.
It follows from the above that no compensation can be properly claimed by the applicant. And finally, I note that the applicant’s claim that the union has lied about who received his grievance request is of no moment to the disposition of this application.
This application is dismissed.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board