Adwar Younan v. Columbia MBF
2480-00-U Adwar Younan, Applicant v. Columbia MBF, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 27, 2000
[1]. This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging that the responding party has breached section 74 of the Act.
[2]. There are numerous difficulties with the application in its present form. In the first place no particulars are filed in accordance with the requirements of the Board’s Rules and Procedures. In this regard the applicant is directed to Rule 26 which states:
- Any application filed with the Board must include the following details:
a) the full name, address, telephone number and facsimile number of the applicant, of a contact person for the applicant, of the responding party and of any other person who may be affected by the application;
b) the sections of the Act or any other act that relate to the application, including the sections that are claimed to have been violated, if any;
c) a detailed description of the orders or remedies requested;
d) a detailed statement of all the material facts on which the applicant relies, including the circumstances, what happened, when and where it happened, and the names of any persons said to have acted improperly;
e) a certificate verifying delivery of the application to the responding party or parties.
[3]. In the second place the responding party named seems not to be a trade union but rather an employer. An application alleging a breach of section 74 of the Act is only available against a trade union. While the employer may be an intervenor, section 74 of the Act deals with the conduct of a trade union in the representation of any of the employees in the relevant bargaining unit.
[4]. It should be noted that in order to establish that a union has contravened section 74 of the Act, an applicant must demonstrate that the union’s actions are:
“arbitrary” – that is, flagrant, capricious, totally unreasonable, or grossly negligent [see, for example, I.T.E. Industries Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. July 1001]; or
“discriminatory” – that is, based on invidious distinctions without reasonable justification or labour relations rationale; or
“in bad faith” – that is motivated by ill-will, malice, hostility or dishonesty.
In assessing a complaint, the Board considers whether the actions of the union fall into one of these three categories. Mistakes or misjudgements by the union are not illegal under the Act. Further, the fact that a grievance does not go to arbitration does not, in itself, establish any arguable breach of the Act.
[5]. In this application there are no just pleadings which establish any breach of section 74 of the Act.
[6]. In the circumstances this application must be dismissed, but without prejudice to the applicant to file another application that would comply with the Rules.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board