Ontario Labour Relations Board
0201-00-U Mary Doughlin, Applicant v. Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 25, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 S.O. 1995 ch.1 (the "Act") in which the applicant alleges that her bargaining agent has violated the duty of fair representation set out in section 74 of the Act. The responding party (HERE Local 75”) has filed a brief response asking the Board to dismiss the application on a number of grounds.
2The Board is not prepared to do so in the absence of a properly detailed response from HERE Local 75. Rule 30 requires far more detail than is contained in the response. Counsel might also have regard to the process described in Information Bulletin 11. If the Board were not to grant the request of HERE Local 75, but simply set the matter down for a consultation, HERE Local 75 could be faced with the prospect of appearing at a consultation where, by virtue of a failure to plead any facts at all, it is deemed to have accepted as true all statements contained in the application.
3A review of the application does not necessarily support the propositions set out in the request to dismiss. It is true that the application does allege a discharge from employment in 1993. However, it also contains a letter from counsel for HERE Local 75 dated December 11, 1998 in which she states “I am employed by Ms. Doughlin’s Union.” The letter is also one to which a reply seems to be expected. The next document, chronologically, is a letter from the same counsel dated March 14, 2000 in which she asserts that the applicant is not a member and has not been since “sometime in 1997”. The application was filed April 18, 2000. It may well be that this application should be dismissed as untimely, but that is not evident from the application itself.
4HERE Local 75 is directed to file a full and complete response to the application on or before June 9, 2000. A copy will, of course, be delivered to the applicant before it is filed with the Board. HERE Local 75 is also directed to set out its submissions in full as to why the application should be dismissed.
5Ms. Doughlin is directed to file with the Board a statement setting out which facts alleged by HERE Local 75 she agrees with and which she disputes on or before June 30, 2000. She should also respond to the reasons why HERE Local 75 says that her application should be dismissed. This should be done in writing, in a letter. No particular form or style need be followed. A handwritten letter is acceptable.
6I am seized of this application.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board