Ontario Labour Relations Board
0637-00-U Roger Fulford, Applicant v. CAW Canada – Local 707, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Roger Fulford and Karyn Bendick for the applicant; David Tremblay, Ted DeLuca, Frank McAnally and Ken Robertson for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 8, 2000
Decision
1This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) that the responding party, CAW Canada – Local 707 (“CAW”) has violated section 74 of the Act.
2A consultation was held on November 1, 2000.
3The applicant was employed by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and was a member of a bargaining unit represented by the CAW.
4Following a period of what appears to be “discipline-free” employment, the applicant, Roger Fulford (“Fulford”) became the subject of a series of letters to CAW Canada – Local 707 (“CAW”) from Ford which placed conditions on his continued employment. The last of these letters was dated April 16, 1997. It contained among its terms the following:
- Any violation of Company rules during this three (3) year period will result in the termination of your employment.
In the event that your employment is terminated in accordance with the conditions specified in this letter, no grievance will be lodged in protest of such termination.
5Fulford was the subject of a harassment complaint. Following an investigation, Ford determined that the applicant had harassed a female employee. In accordance with the letter of April 16, 1997, Fulford’s employment was terminated in May 1998. The CAW, in accordance with the letter of April 16, 1997, decided not to grieve the termination. It was the position of the CAW that the letter prevented a grievance on the appropriateness of the penalty and that the only grievance it could pursue was whether the Company rule had been violated. The CAW concluded that the rule had been violated and determined that there was no purpose in pursuing a grievance.
6There is no allegation in the application which indicates that the CAW’s decision to not pursue a grievance was anything other than a decision by the union to follow the terms of the letter of April 16, 1997. There is no allegation that the CAW in making this decision acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner. Accordingly, the application can not be successful even if all of the allegations of the applicant are assumed to be true.
7Further, this application was filed two years after the date of the termination. A delay of this magnitude is not normally acceptable, there was no adequate explanation for the delay and the delay is a separate reason to dismiss this application.
8There is one matter in this application that the Board finds troubling. The applicant alleges that he was terminated by way of a telephone call. No one appeared on behalf of Ford and this matter was not disputed by the CAW and as such the Board must conclude that this occurred. Regardless, there is still no allegation that the CAW violated its obligation to Fulford in relation to the manner of the termination. In fact, it is the applicant’s allegation that having received this telephone call he contacted a representative of the CAW who informed him that he had been terminated for a violation of the April 16, 1997 letter – a violation that the CAW decided, as is its right, that it was not going to pursue as a grievance where it believed that the violation had occurred.
9Having regard to the foregoing reasons, this application is dismissed.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board