Ontario Labour Relations Board
File Nos.: 1254-98-U, 1449-98-U Date: May 10, 2000
Between: Mohamed T. Unoos, Applicant v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, Responding Party v. Delta Chelsea Inn, Intervenor.
And Between: Mohamed T. Unoos, Applicant v. Ms. Winnie Eg., Responding Party v. Delta Chelsea Inn, Intervenor.
Before: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1By decision of the Board dated April 10, 2000, the applicant was directed to file an explanation with the Board stating why he had previously told the Board that he had not heard from the responding party (“the union”) as to the status of his grievances when it appears from copies of letters submitted by the union that he was indeed aware of how the union was dealing with the grievances.
2At a consultation held on March 2, 2000, the applicant stated clearly that he was unaware of the status of his grievances. Now, in a letter to the Board dated April 25, 2000, he states that he thought the Board knew about the union’s letters to him because a Labour Relations Officer allegedly told him that the Board had copies of the letters. He does not explain why the Board would ask him on March 2nd whether he had heard from the union if the Board already had copies of the union’s letters to him dated October 1, 1999 and November 2, 1999. The applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to inform the Board of these important pieces of correspondence. Instead, he seeks to shift the blame onto a Labour Relations Officer and the Board itself.
3The factual basis for the applicant’s claim under section 74, as explained in his letter of April 25, 2000 is that the union treated him unfairly because it did not respond to him when he telephoned to find out the status of his grievances. He further alleges that the union treated him arbitrarily when it settled his grievances without his agreement.
4The correspondence from the union referred to in the Board’s decision dated April 10, 2000, shows that the union explained to the applicant the basis on which it settled his grievances. Furthermore, it is well-established that the union, as exclusive bargaining agent, is not obligated to take instructions from the applicant as to the disposition of his grievances.
5The Board has the discretion as to whether or not to hear a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
6Given the applicant’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation for his statements to the Board on March 2, 2000, and given that the facts asserted by the applicant even if assumed to be true, to do not point to a violation of section 74, the Board has determined that there is no labour relations purpose in proceeding any further with these matters.
7These applications are dismissed.
"Anthony Brown"
for the Board