1609-00-U Natalie Hawley, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3261, Responding Party v. University of Toronto, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 31, 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.
2Section 74 of the Act states as follows:
- A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
3The responding party requests that this application be dismissed without a hearing because it does not disclose a prima facie breach of section 74 of the Act. By decision dated October 6, 2000 the Board directed the applicant to respond to the responding party’s request. This decision deals with this issue.
4The applicant was a casual employee of the University of Toronto in 1998 under the part-time collective agreement. She was represented in her employment relations with the University by the responding party.
5The applicant applied for employment in the summer of 1999. She expected to get a position but she did not. On or about June 4, 1999 the responding party filed a grievance on her behalf.
6The grievance went through the grievance procedure. The step-two meeting was held on June 21, 1999 and the step-three meeting was held on September 27, 1999. The grievance was dismissed. The union’s representatives either did not try to contact the applicant or were unsuccessful in their attempt to contact the applicant. The applicant did not contact the union until June 2000.
7It is difficult to determine from the application or from the applicant’s response to the responding party’s motion for dismissal exactly what the applicant’s complaint is. The applicant claims $2,400. which is the award she asserts she would have received had her claim not been handled “haphazardly and arbitrarily” by the union. She states that her grievance was not settled within six weeks, she was forced to find alternate employment, and that had her grievance not been handled in an improper manner she would have been employed during this six-week period and earned approximately $2,400.
8As framed, the application does not make out a violation of section 74 of the Act. While the applicant asserts that her grievance was handled “haphazardly”, there are no facts alleged to support this assertion. In fact, there appears to be no dispute that the union filed a grievance on her behalf and held several meetings with the University with respect to the grievance. The grievance was filed on June 3, 1999, a step-two meeting was held on June 21, 1999 and a step-three meeting was held on September 27, 1999. Given these facts, it is difficult to see how the union was negligent.
9More importantly, the applicant appears not to dispute in any meaningful way the union’s decision to withdraw the grievance. Even had the union proceeded to arbitration with the grievance in a non-“haphazard” way, there is no suggestion that the union would have won.
10The application does not disclose a prima facie breach of section 74 of the Act and it is accordingly dismissed.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board