0738-00-U Keith Charles Vey, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.), Responding Party v. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 14, 2000
1This is an application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
2The Board is in receipt of the applicant’s submissions as directed by the Board’s endorsement of July 5, 2000.
3The applicant takes the position that he was under duress at the time he signed minutes of settlement in which he acknowledged that the responding party (“the union”) had represented him properly throughout the grievance and settlement process culminating in the execution of the minutes of settlement. While it is not entirely clear, it would appear that the alleged duress was primarily caused by the serious illness suffered by the applicant’s son around the time of the execution of the minutes of settlement.
4The applicant also claims that he was coerced and the subject of misrepresentation. Again it is not entirely clear, but it appears that the alleged misrepresentation consisted primarily of the allegation that the union failed to reveal that it had written a letter to the intervenor (“the employer”) in which it took a position contrary to the views held by the applicant, and assumed certain facts about the arrangements between the applicant and the employer that the applicant disputes.
5The alleged coercion seems to consist of pressure exerted by the mediator who supervised the settlement. In addition, the applicant claims that the union exerted pressure by insisting that the settlement had to be completed on the day of the mediation of the applicant’s grievance. The applicant further alleges that the union warned him that there was no guarantee the union would vote for arbitration of his grievances if he did not accept the settlement. Finally, the applicant alleges that parts of the minutes of settlement had to be explained to him because he “could not make out what it said”.
6The Board is of the view that, even taking the applicant’s submissions at their highest, the minutes of settlement were entered into voluntarily by the applicant. Any duress suffered by the applicant was the result of a personal crisis, no part of which was caused by the union. There is no suggestion by the applicant that the union was aware of the applicant’s personal crisis or that the union recognized that the applicant was not perhaps in a state of mind conducive to consideration of an offer to settle.
7The allegation that the mediator exerted pressure on the applicant to settle his grievances is not one that implicates the union in any way. And the allegations that the union was anxious to settle the matter on the day of the mediation, and warned the applicant that it might not support the referral of his grievances to arbitration, are not examples of coercion. By their very nature, settlement discussions often involve time constraints. Moreover, the union would have been remiss in not reminding the applicant of the possibility that his grievances might not proceed to arbitration. In any event, the applicant could have refused to sign the minutes of settlement and taken his chances regarding the arbitration option. Instead, he signed a document resolving his grievances and stating unequivocally that the union had represented him properly. He claims some inability initially to understand parts of the document, but goes on to say that these parts were explained to him.
8The applicant has failed to establish material allegations which, if proven, would support a finding of a violation of section 74 of the Act.
9The application is dismissed.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board