Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties
0242-00-U Gary Sobeski, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 636, Responding Party v. TRW Automotive (Kelsey-Hayes Canada Limited), Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 9, 2000
Decision
This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch.1 (the "Act") in which the applicant alleges that his bargaining agent has violated the duty of fair representation set out in section 74 of the Act. The responding party (“CAW”) has filed a detailed and documented response. The CAW asks that this application be dismissed as one which does not disclose a prima facie case. Rule 46 of the Board's Rules of Procedure provides:
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.
The application, like many applications under section 74, is very brief. However, it does contain sufficient detail that, if all the facts are proven, and no other facts are proven, the facts alleged make out a case, at least arguably, for the relief requested. However, the Board is concerned that the applicant has not addressed all of the relevant facts in this matter. It may well prove that none of the allegations contained in the response are true, or at least that they take on a very different appearance when placed in context. There are, however, a number of serious matters alleged. For example, in paragraphs 29 to 31, it is alleged that the applicant first sought to undo the effect of the Minutes of Settlement four months after he signed them, and only then because his alternate employment was providing inadequate income. This allegation is of some concern to the Board.
The Board normally handles complaints alleging a violation of section 74 by way of consultation. Evidence is called only to deal with disputed facts which are of importance for the decision. In this case the Board does not know what facts are disputed, or what all of the relevant facts may be. There may for instance be additional facts that the applicant wishes to allege that place certain of the statements in the response in a different context. The time to find out about those facts is before rather than at a consultation.
Accordingly, the applicant is directed, on or before 5:00 p.m. July 7, 2000, to file a statement with the Board setting out which paragraphs of Schedule A of the response he agrees with, which he disagrees with and what other facts (if any) he says are relevant to this application. At the same time he shall provide a copy of this statement to the CAW and to Kelsey-Hayes Canada Ltd. If the applicant fails to do so, he will be deemed to have accepted as correct all the facts set out in the CAW’s response, and the Board will deal with it on that basis. The CAW is directed not to respond to the statement unless directed to do so by the Board.
I am seized of this application for the purposes of considering the submissions of the applicant.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board