3559-99-U Bryan Hisko, Applicant v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 47, Responding Party v. Gorlan Mechanical Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 4, 2000
This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging that the responding party has violated section 74 of the Act.
Without reviewing the facts, essentially the applicant alleges that he has been terminated and that the responding party has not proceeded with a grievance relating to his alleged termination contrary to section 74 of the Act. The responding party takes the position that the applicant was laid off and that there has been no breach of the collective agreement. The responding party therefore submits that it has not breached section 74 of the Act.
Both the intervenor and the responding party request that this matter be dismissed as on the basis that the application discloses no prima facie case.
The responding party has filed a very full and complete response. There is, however, conflict between the pleadings of the applicant and the responding party regarding the events that occurred. Thus in these circumstances, the Board is not prepared to dismiss this application at this time. While not dismissing the application, the applicant should be put on notice that if the events set out in the pleadings filed by the respondent are proven, the chances for success for the applicant would appear to be very limited.
The matter is directed to the Registrar to schedule a consultation hearing in the normal course. Other matters raised by the parties, such as timeliness, may be raised at such consultation hearing.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board