Ontario Labour Relations Board
2860-99-U Dr. Alison Cormie (Ph.D), Applicant v. Laurentian University Faculty Association (LUFA), Responding Party v. Laurentian University, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Marsha Lindsay and Allison Cormie for the applicant; Dr. Peter Simpson for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 8, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") in which it is alleged that the responding party trade union violated section 74 of the Act.
2A consultation was held in this matter on August 25, 2000. Laurentian University did not attend the consultation as it had not been provided with appropriate notice of the consultation. However, prior to the commencement of the consultation, it advised the Board that it was satisfied that the consultation proceed in its absence.
3The facts alleged in the application are quite complicated. The applicant was a non-tenured professor employed by the university. She was represented in her employment relations with the university by the responding party (the "faculty association").
4In 1997 the applicant became concerned about the treatment she was receiving at the hands of a fellow professor. Among other things, the applicant believed she was being sexually harassed by the professor (who is a woman) because she believed that she was being subjected to treatment that she would not have received had the applicant not been a woman. The applicant also believed that the professor was interfering in her ability to teach. Initially, she made a complaint to her department head. When nothing was done, she contacted the faculty association.
5Eventually, the applicant's contract of employment expired and she was not given another one. She, therefore, is no longer employed by the university.
6What the faculty association did or did not do on the applicant's behalf is the main focus of the applicant's complaint.
7The applicant alleges that she contacted her steward in March 1998 and gave him copies of the written complaints that she had already made against the professor to her department head and the university administrator. She expected that the faculty association would do something to ensure that the harassment stopped, but she alleges that it did essentially nothing for more than a year.
8The faculty association has quite a different story. It asserts that the applicant came to it in May 1998. Initially, the applicant only gave her complaint to the faculty association in a sealed envelope with instructions that nothing be done until she advised otherwise. It was not until one year later that she asked that the complaint be unsealed and that the union pursue her complaint on a formal basis. Once she did so, the faculty association actually convinced the university to conduct a formal investigation into her complaint which has been concluded, albeit with unsatisfactory results for the applicant.
9There was also a side issue regarding the union's representation of the applicant in connection with the fact that she did not receive a course assignment that she should have. There is no dispute that through the union's efforts the applicant has received payment for the course. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that the union's representation of the applicant in connection with this matter did not violate section 74 of the Act.
10The union's representation of the applicant in connection with her harassment grievance cannot be so easily dealt with. There is a fundamental conflict in the positions of the two parties, both regarding what the applicant requested that the faculty association do with her complaint and what it actually did on her behalf during the period of March 1998 until June 1999. These conflicts can only be resolved through a hearing.
11The faculty association argued strenuously at the consultation that the applicant had never requested a remedy which it could act on. The faculty association also asserts that even if all of the applicant's allegations are found to be correct, there has never been a position available for her to assume after her contract expired. It asserts therefore that it is not appropriate for the applicant to seek reinstatement. The applicant asserts that she would still be employed had the faculty association provided her with proper representation.
12Based on the information I heard, there may well be substantial merit to the faculty association's position. However, that is a matter best left to the panel hearing the case after hearing the evidence. In any event, the difficulty in fashioning a remedy, or the fact that the applicant may not have a remedy other than a declaration, ought not, under the circumstances, to cause the Board to refuse to hear her case altogether.
13This matter is referred to the Registrar to be scheduled for hearing. The only issue which will be dealt with at the hearing is whether the faculty association represented the applicant in connection with her harassment concerns in accordance with section 74 of the Act during the period March 1998 until June 1999. I am not seized.
"Brian McLean"
for the Board