Ontario Labour Relations Board
1677-01-U Baljinder Singh Furma, Applicant v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 333, Responding Party.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 16, 2000
1This matter is an application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, (the "Act") in which Mr. Furma asserts that the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 333 (the "union") failed to comply with its duty of fair representation in connection with an injury he suffered on July 22, 1997 and his employer's subsequent failure to return him to work following a medical report of December 5, 1997 stating that he was ready to return to work.
2The Board is in receipt of correspondence dated September 17, 2001 from counsel for the union in which the union requests that the Board dismiss this application without a hearing or a consultation.
3Many of the alleged events relied upon by Mr. Furma in support of his application, such as the union's alleged failure to assist Mr. Furma with completing the Form 7, occurred years prior to the filing of the application. Some of the events relied upon by Mr. Furma, such as the union's failure to advise Mr. Furma to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission are matters that the Board has never found to fall within the ambit of a union's duty of fair representation. The Board, in the normal course, would not enquire into such matters on the basis that they were not timely or because they do not constitute a violation of section 74.
4There are a number of allegations that concern somewhat more recent events. Mr. Furma complains about the union's handling of a grievance it filed on his behalf in or about mid-1999 arising out of the employer's failure to return him to work in December, 1997. Mr. Furma acknowledges in the application that he did not contact the union to ask its assistance with the filing of such a grievance until 18 months after December 5, 1997. The union eventually declined to pursue the grievance to arbitration on the basis that an arbitrator would likely not entertain it because it had not been filed in a timely manner. Given Mr. Furma's acknowledgment that he did not contact the union about the matter for a period of 18 months, the union's position is likely a valid one. The union likely had good reason for not taking Mr. Furma's grievance to arbitration. If such is the case, the Board would not require the union to pursue Mr. Furma's grievance to arbitration.
5Mr. Furma also has a number of complaints about the manner in which the union conducted itself in connection with the grievance it filed on his behalf and its communications with him. Mr. Furma asserts that he was given misinformation about his grievance and the arbitration proceedings. While such conduct might amount to a violation of the union's duty of fair representation there is little in the way of a remedy that Mr. Furma would likely obtain by way of this application. If the union was justified in not pursuing the grievance, the Board would not order the union to pursue the grievance based on a failure to appropriately communicate with Mr. Furma surrounding its carriage of the grievance. At most, the Board may issue a declaration that the union violated the Act, a remedy that may be meaningless to Mr. Furma.
6Having regard to all of the foregoing, Mr. Furma is hereby directed to file a response to the union's request that this matter be dismissed without the need for a hearing or a consultation as set out in its letter of September 17, 2001.
7I am seized with this matter for the purpose of dealing with the union's dismissal request.
"D. L. Gee"
for the Board