Mohamed T. Unoos v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75
1254-98-U Mohamed T. Unoos, Applicant v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, Responding Party v. Delta Chelsea Inn, Intervenor.
1449-98-U Mohamed T. Unoos, Applicant v. Ms. Winnie Eg, Responding Party v. Delta Chelsea Inn, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 10, 2000
1These are applications filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) alleging violation of section 74.
2On March 9, 2000, the Board issued a decision directing the responding party to provide details to the applicant about the status of his grievances. The applicant informed the Board at a hearing held on March 2, 2000 that he had received no information about his grievances for a period of six months.
3In response to the Board’s decision of March 9, 2000, the responding party sent the applicant a letter dated March 17, 2000, explaining why his grievances were withdrawn. Attached to that letter are copies of two other letters written by the responding party to the applicant. One dated November 2, 1999, apprised the applicant in detail of the status of his grievances and relevant settlement discussions. Another letter, dated October 1, 1999, also explained to the applicant what was happening with his grievances.
4The applicant has advised the Board by letter dated April 3, 2000, as follows:
“Just to let you [the Board] know I have received your letter on 16th March, 2000. In that letter its suggest that the union will contact me from that date until March 17, 2000. Today April 3rd and they have not respond to me in any way by phone or mail. So I am asking you to take immediate action. This is the way union treat me as a member.”
5Contrary to the information in the applicant’s letter, the responding party appears to have forwarded to the applicant the information that it was directed by the Board to provide. This information appears to contradict the applicant’s statements to the Board on March 9, 2000 to the effect that he was unaware of what was happening.
6According to the aforementioned letters the responding party has investigated the applicant’s grievances and has discussed them with the intervenor. It appears to have gone to reasonable lengths to keep the applicant informed about his grievances, to explain his settlement options and to explain why the grievances were ultimately withdrawn. In its letter of March 17, 2000, the responding party told the applicant:
Secondly, as communicated to you by letter dated November 2, 1999, (attached), your two scheduling grievances have also been abandoned. We spoke about the contents of this letter and the Employer’s settlement offer concerning these two grievances on November 18, 1999. You indicated that you were unwilling to consider any settlement and that you just wanted to proceed to the Board on this matter. As has been made clear to you in writing on more than one occasion, the Employer’s offer to settle was equal to or better than what we could win at arbitration which is why we would not proceed to arbitration with these grievances.”
7The Board directs the applicant to file with the Board, with a copy to the responding parties and the intervenor, a reply to the union’s letter of March 17, 2000 and attachments thereto. The applicant must address those material facts that he asserts remain in dispute and must state in detail why he asserts that the union acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Furthermore, the applicant shall explain to the Board why he failed to mentioned the union’s letters of October 1, 1999 and November 2, 1999 when he appeared before the Board on March 9, 2000. The applicant shall file his submissions within ten days of the date of this decision (excluding Saturday, Sunday and days on which the Board is closed), failing which the applications shall be deemed terminated.
8If submissions are received within the time specified, the Board will consider the matter further. The parties are advised that the Board may decide the matter without a further consultation or hearing.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board