0282-00-U Kimberley Ann Partridge, Applicant v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 647, Responding Party v. Nestlé Canada Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 11, 2000
1This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) that the responding party has breached section 74 of the Act.
2Without reviewing the alleged facts in this matter, essentially the applicant, a seasonal employee, alleges that the responding party refused to represent her properly in relation to seasonal work that occurred in 1999. From the pleadings filed it would appear that the applicant was hired in mid February 1999, and worked to the end of the summer of 1999.
3The applicant was laid-off at the end of the summer of 1999. The applicant complains that after she was laid-off “the Company refuses to call me back, and the Union will not act on my best interest”. She further requests that there be a “revote on contract so all people have right to vote. Since I was hired under the old contract and it says if you work before March 1 you would be entitled to full time rates of pay + put on 45 day list. Since I was hired Feb. 15/99 I would like seniority and all monies I should have made while junior people were and still are working”.
4Without again detailing in full the responses, both the intervenor and the responding party allege that during the latest round of negotiations it was agreed that the seasonal work could commence in mid-February. It is further alleged that, that the collective agreement signed in March of 1999 does not grant seniority rights to seasonal employees and does not give them the right to file grievances.
5The responding party asks that this application be dismissed without a hearing.
6There appears to be a basic conflict between the parties as to what are the relevant terms of the collective agreement. Thus in these circumstances the Board is not prepared to dismiss the application at this time. While not dismissing the application, the applicant should be put on notice that if the pleadings filed by the intervenor and the responding party are proven, the chances of success for the applicant would appear to be very limited.
7The matter is directed to the Registrar to schedule a consultation hearing in the normal course. In addition any other issues set out in the pleading by the parties may be raised at such consultation hearing.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board