Blanch McIntosh v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 351
2393-98-U Blanch McIntosh, Applicant v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 351, Responding Party v. Days Inn Toronto Downtown, Intervenor.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 1, 2000
1This matter is an application pursuant to section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") in which a consultation was held on December 21, 1999.
2At the consultation, the applicant, Blanch McIntosh, with the assistance of Rohanna Segree, clarified for the Board the nature of her complaint. In essence, Ms. McIntosh asserts that Sonia Rose was given preferential treatment by the responding party due to the fact that Ms. Rose assisted the responding party in displacing the prior trade union. Ms. McIntosh further asserts that she is being discriminated against on the basis of her union support.
3The responding party asserts that it agreed to credit Ms. Rose for her time outside of the unit based on past practice. Counsel for the responding party asserted that at the time of responding to the application he was aware of the identity of one individual, Ms. Segree, who had been credited with time outside of the unit. At the consultation, Ms. Rose provided the names of two other individuals she understood had been credited with time spent outside of the unit. As a result, Days Inn was directed to provide the responding party with information concerning the employment histories of the individuals in question. Such information has now been provided.
4In order to ensure that this matter continues to proceed towards a resolution, the Registrar of the Board is hereby directed to list this matter for a further day of consultation to be held on June 29, 2000. The consultation will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the Board's offices located at 505 University Ave., 2nd floor, Toronto, Ontario.
5The responding party is directed to file a further response in this matter no later than May 12, 2000 setting out in chronological order all of the facts relevant to this matter. The responding party is to provide a full explanation for the basis of its decision to negotiate an agreement with Days Inn whereby Ms. Rose would be credited with time spent outside of the unit when the trade union that was her representative at the time of her return to the unit declined to do so. Further, the responding party is to set out full details concerning its position that, at the time it negotiated the agreement with Days Inn, it was relying on an existing past practice. In this regard, I note that at the first day of consultation, counsel for the responding party stated that at the time the responding party negotiated the agreement, it was aware of the identity of only one individual who had been credited with time spent outside of the unit. In light of such fact, the responding party is to explain the basis for its understanding that such a past practice existed and why its reliance on the basis for its understanding was reasonable in the circumstances.
6I am seized.
"D. L. Gee"
for the Board