Ontario Labour Relations Board
3112-99-U Deborah Anne Halfpenny, Applicant v. Canadian Auto Workers, Local 4401, Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 13, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch. 1 (the “Act”) alleging that the responding party (“CAW”) has violated section 74 of the Act in its representation of the applicant. The Board required the parties to make written submissions as to the jurisdiction of the Board to entertain this application. Both the applicant and the CAW filed responses. The applicant has not replied to the CAW’s submissions in the time allotted for a response. The Board therefore will deal with the issue on the basis of the material before it.
2The applicant alleges that she was employed by Upper Lakes Group Inc. as a marine porter on freighters that travel “to various ports on the Great Lakes with cargo”. Given that the fields of “Navigation and Shipping” are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, labour relations in this area is generally outside the scope of this Board’s authority. While there are exceptions, it is up to the party who asserts he or she falls within such an exception to demonstrate the facts which are the basis of such a claim.
3Neither the applicant nor the CAW have provided the Board with submissions about the specific facts concerning the applicant’s employment duties or the context in which she performed these duties. However, the CAW has provided the Board with evidence that, generally, the labour relations of the CAW and Upper Lakes Group Inc. are governed by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985 ch. L-2. Given the legal regime under which the parties operate, the nature of the work performed by Upper Great Lakes Inc. as a business and by the applicant as an employee, it would be an extraordinary set of facts which would demonstrate that the labour relations relationship which is the subject of this application falls within provincial jurisdiction. The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the applicant. She has provided no facts at all.
4The Board finds that it is without jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of this application. This application is therefore dismissed.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board