Leslie Arthur Swan v. Local Union 46
0339-00-U Leslie Arthur Swan, Applicant v. Local Union 46, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 5, 2000
1This is a somewhat peculiar application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (“the Act”).
2The relief sought by the applicant is that the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
3The applicant is careful to point out in the application that no employer is involved in the matter, no collective agreement is involved, he has not lost his employment and he does not believe the responding party (“the union”) has violated any provision of the Act. The applicant explains that his real complaint is with the way the union has treated him under its constitution in its internal workings. For reasons not apparent in the application, he seeks an opinion from the Board that the Board does not entertain applications regarding such matters.
4Somewhat surprisingly, the union does not ask for the application to be dismissed. It contends that the applicant should be directed to file a fresh application which properly sets out a complaint under the Act. The union gives notice that when such an application is filed, it will have a full defence to that application on grounds of the untimeliness of the anticipated allegations.
5In other words, it seems that the applicant has filed an application he does not want to file, and the responding party objects to the application because it does not make the allegations it wants him to make, so that it can say they are untimely.
6It is not the Board’s usual practice to give gratuitous advice to parties. However, that is an inevitable outcome of the disposition of this matter. No useful purpose will be served to require the applicant to file an application he does not want to file. Before the Board is an application which is entirely without merit because it discloses no cause of action against the responding party under the Act. The issues mentioned in the application concern only the internal workings of the responding party and its dealings with the applicant as a member of the union, not as an employee seeking representation in relation to an employer.
7The application is therefore dismissed.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board