0497-00-U Rose Wigle, Applicant v. UFCW Local 333, CAW and Ken Maheux, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 9, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (“the Act”') in which it is claimed that either the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 333 (“ the UFCW”) or an unspecified Local of a trade union identified as “CAW” has violated section 74 of the Act.
Section 74 provides as follows:
- A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
2In its response, the UFCW points out that the application appears to be brought by an individual by the name of Rose Wigle, who it identifies as a member of the bargaining unit for which the UFCW has bargaining rights at Radisson Riverfront Hotel (“the Hotel”) in the City of Windsor. On its face the application names the UFCW and the Hotel as the applicants, and the UFCW and CAW as responding parties. The UFCW states that it is not an applicant in this matter, but is properly a responding party.
3As a responding party, the UFCW states that there are no facts pleaded in the application which would, if established in evidence, ground a complaint under section 74 of the Act. It requests that the Board dismiss the application on that basis.
4The material facts upon which the apparent applicant relies are as follows:
We as Union Members employed at the Radison Riverfromt Hotel, had a vote to leave the UFCW Local 333 to join the CAW as our own bargaining unit and to be able to negotiate our own contract. We were then informed that we would become a single bargaining unit with the Hilton. Therefore we would not have our own contract, leaving our seniority status in question.
We feel that we were mislead by the UFCW Local 333/CAW By:
We were told that we would be bargaining out own collective agreement.
Not all union members were notified of vote whether or not there was quorum at the meeting.
Remedies:
We are to remain a separate bargaining unit at the Radison Riverfront Hotel, and we want to negotiate our own collective agreement.
5Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure provide as follows:
- Where the Board considers that an application does not make out a case for the orders or remedies requested, even if all of the facts stated in the application are assumed to be true, the Board may dismiss the application without a hearing or consultation. In its decision, the Board will set out its reasons.
6The information set out above is deficient in terms of identifying the trade union that is alleged to be in contravention of section 74, individuals who it is alleged led the apparent applicant to believe certain facts, exactly what those certain facts were, and how any alleged conduct could be construed as arbitrary, discriminatory or motivated by bad faith. The application form itself (Form A-29) prompts applicants to include “all the circumstances, what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of any persons said to have acted improperly”. The facts pleaded in this application provide only the briefest narrative of “what happened”, and nothing more. In short, it is difficult to tell what this application is truly about. Moreover, it is not up to the Board to speculate.
7The application is dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case of a violation of section 74, without prejudice to the filing of a fresh application setting out in sufficient detail the basis for a complaint.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board