File No.: 3106-99-U Margaret Harper, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Responding Party.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 4, 2000
1This is a complaint pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). The applicant alleges that the responding party (the union) has breached section 74 of the Act with respect to the manner in which it has handled her grievances in respect of job postings.
2The applicant has provided a detailed description of her concerns, and a chronology of events. Essentially, the applicant alleges that the union has not moved quickly enough in advancing her grievances; has adjourned hearing dates without good reason; has failed to provide timely notice of the adjournments and generally, has not diligently advanced the applicant’s interests. The applicant concludes that as a result of these delays and lack of diligence she has been denied the posted job for over a year.
3As a remedy, the applicant wants the salary she would have earned had she won the job or in the alternative, she wants the arbitration hearing expedited and the union representative with carriage of the matter replaced.
4The union’s response asks that the application be dismissed for failure to make out a prima facie, or an arguable breach of section 74 of the Act. It is this request that I am addressing in this decision.
5I conclude that the applicant has pleaded a prima facie case. To be clear, for the purpose of this decision only, I am assuming that everything the applicant has alleged is true. If the matter proceeds to a consultation or hearing, the applicant will still have to establish the truth of everything she alleges. But in considering whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case, I assume the allegations are true.
6However, I have concluded that it is premature to inquire further into this complaint. Much turns on the outcome of the arbitration which is scheduled to continue in October 2000. In my view, it is preferable to await the outcome of that matter.
7This proceeding is adjourned sine die. Either party may seek to bring it on for hearing once Arbitrator Hunter has issued a final decision or the grievances are otherwise disposed of.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board