Dave J. Scott v. Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416
Dave J. Scott, Applicant v. Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416, Responding Party v. The City of Toronto, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Dave Scott on his own behalf; Doug Lefaive and Joe Mele for Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416; M. Martosh and Jayne Allan for the City of Toronto.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 17, 2000
1This is an application pursuant to sections 74 and 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”). The applicant, Dave J. Scott asserts that the Union, Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416 (“Local 416) has failed to represent him and has acted in a way that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
2A consultation was held on Tuesday, July 4, 2000.
3The applicant requested an adjournment of the consultation because he was ill. He had no medical notes or records. This request was opposed by Local 416 and the intervenor employer, The City of Toronto (“the City”).
4Given the lack of medical evidence, the fact that the applicant was able to express himself well and the opposition of the other parties to the applicant’s request, I decided that the consultation would continue.
5The applicant was asked to state what had occurred and the remedy that he now sought.
6The applicant stated that he wanted to know
a) what mistakes were made and who made them;
b) why he had two records of employment;
c) why he was laid off or dismissed; and
d) why he had not been recalled back to work.
He also indicated that he would like a letter of apology.
7Local 416 took the position that the application ought to be dismissed due to either delay, or a failure to provide full particulars. In the alternative, the application ought to be dismissed for lack of prima facie case.
8Local 416 took the position that the applicant was a probationary employee and pursuant to its collective agreement with the City, Local 416 had no right to pursue a grievance about the applicant’s cessation of employment. Local 416 referred specifically to Articles 4(e)(i) and 4(e)(iv) of that collective agreement in support of its position that there was no right to grieve a dismissal of a probationary employee. It also cited the decision of the Divisional Court in The Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Metropolitan Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local No. 43 et al. (unreported, June 12, 1986), (Ont. Div. Ct.).
9The applicant was a probationary employee. The employer and Local 416 negotiated terms and conditions of employment for probationary employees. These terms specifically state that probationary employees have no rights pursuant to the collective agreement other than with respect to wages and check off of union dues.
10The City agreed with the submissions made by Local 416.
11The applicant did not make out a prima facie case. That is, even if all of the allegations made by the applicant were true, they do not support a finding that Local 416 acted in any way contrary to the Act. Local 416 acted in compliance with the Act. It considered this matter and decided not to file a grievance knowing that there was “no possibility” that a grievance would be successful. In determining that, Local 416 acted in compliance with the Act and did not, in any way, act in a manner that was discriminatory, arbitrary or in bad faith.
12Given the lack of prima facie case, it is not necessary to consider Local 416’s other arguments in relation to delay and a failure to provide full particulars.
13For these reasons, this application is dismissed.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board