Abdalla Salem Abunour v. H.E.R.E. Local 75, Delta Chelsea Hotel
0510-00-U Abdalla Salem Abunour, Applicant v. H.E.R.E. Local 75, Delta Chelsea Hotel, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 19, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) in which the applicant alleges that the responding party trade union (the “union”) and the Delta Chelsea Hotel (“Delta”) have violated section 74 of the Act.
2Section 74 of the Act reads 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.
3The applicant is a member of the union and is employed by Delta in the Room Service Department. The applicant also serves as a shop steward for the union. The union and Delta are bound to a collective agreement effective February 1, 1999 to January 31, 2002.
4Section 74 of the Act does not apply to an employer. Accordingly the application is dismissed as against Delta.
5The union and Delta have requested the Board to dismiss the application on the basis that it does not establish a prima facie case of a breach of section 74 of the Act. The application contains very little in terms of specific allegations relating to a breach of section 74. The application does contain a number of legal conclusions asserting that representatives of the union have failed to fulfill their statutory obligations in representing their members. Simply stating that representatives of the union breached the Act, however, does not meet the requirements the Act imposes on an applicant to set out all of the material facts it intends to rely upon in proving its case. Accordingly, these unsubstantiated allegations are hereby dismissed.
6The application does make specific reference to the conduct of representatives of the union in relation to the processing of grievance 12-066-99. The union and Delta advise, however, that the grievance procedures under the collective agreement have not been exhausted. That being the case, the allegations in relation to the handling of grievance 12-066-99 are hereby dismissed as they are premature. Should the applicant be displeased with the eventual outcome of grievance 12-066-99 and considers the union’s conduct in processing the grievance to be in violation of section 74 of the Act, he may file a fresh application.
“John Morgan Lewis”
for the Board