Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3065-99-U Date: July 26, 2000
Between: Kenneth E. Pitt, Applicant v. Power Workers’ Union CUPE Local 1000, Responding Party v. Ontario Hydro Services Company Inc., Intervenor
Before: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.
Appearances: Kenneth Pitt for the applicant; John Monger and Cal Carter for the responding party; Anne Gallop and Jim R. Shier for the intervenor
Decision of the Board
This is a complaint by Kenneth Pitt (“Pitt”) that the Power Workers’ Union (“Power Workers”) has failed to represent him in accordance with section 74 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. (“the Act”)
Pitt is employed by Ontario Hydro Services Company Inc. (“Ontario Hydro”) as a Design Draftsperson and is represented by the Power Workers.
A consultation was held on Tuesday, July 25, 2000.
Pitt requested that the Power Workers pursue a grievance relating to payment for relief work from January 1994 to May 31, 1999. He said that he brought this matter to the attention of the Power Workers on June 28, 1999 by copying his union steward on a letter addressed to his manager. The letter requested that his manager investigate a decision to give another person a job rather than Pitt and determine if, in doing so, there were any violations of the Ontario Human Rights Code or Ontario Hydro’s Code of Business Conduct. Pitt stated that the only reference in the letter to a grievance relating to payment for relief work is in the third paragraph which states that “(a) s an applicant and the unaccredited, uncompensated, five and one half years incumbent, I was surprised when the appointment was announced…”.
Pitt stated further that he pursued this matter with his steward by speaking with him and sending him e-mail messages. On September 27, 1999, he wrote an e-mail message in which he clearly articulated that he wished to have his steward pursue a grievance on his behalf relating to payment for relief work.
When asked to state the arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith conduct of the Power Workers, Pitt indicated that his grievance was not filed and whether it was an oversight or bad judgment, he had a legitimate grievance and wanted it filed.
The Power Workers and Ontario Hydro are parties to a collective agreement that provides, among other things, that a grievance is to be filed within thirty days from the date that the grievor knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the grievance.
The Power Workers stated that the matter was not brought to its attention within thirty days of the date of the occurrence of the grievance and as a result the grievance was “doomed to failure”. Further, it was the position of the Power Workers that there is no conduct complained of which can be construed as being arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. The Power Workers request that the application be dismissed.
Ontario Hydro agreed with the Power Workers that if the grievance was filed outside of the time limits in the collective agreement that the grievance would not be successful. It also agreed with the Power Workers that there is no conduct complained of which would support a breach of the Act.
I find that Pitt did not bring to the attention of the Power Workers his expectation that a grievance be filed on his behalf within thirty days of May 31, 1999. The only communication with the Power Workers within that timeframe was the letter of June 28, 1999. There is nothing in that letter to support the contention that the Power Workers should have known to file a grievance on Pitt’s behalf relating to payment for relief work. As a result, any grievance that would have been filed in this matter would have been outside the time limits set out in the collective agreement. In not filing a grievance which was brought to its attention after the completion of the time limits for filing a grievance, the Power Workers were not acting in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
Furthermore, Pitt did not submit that the Power Workers acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Absent any factual submissions, Pitt did not make out a prima facie case. That is, Pitt did not set out any facts that, if true, would support a finding that the Power Workers’ had acted contrary to the Act.
For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board