0416-01-U Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Applicant v. Allied Construction Employees Local 1030, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and Leslie Hanecak, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 12, 2001
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch.1 (the "Act") in which the applicant alleges that the responding parties have violated sections 5 and 76. The responding parties have asked the Board to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
2The Board has the authority to dismiss an application where the facts, even if proved, would not form the basis of the relief sought, or indeed any relief. Rule 46 provides:
- Where the Board considers that an application does not make out a case for the orders or remedies requested, even if all of the facts stated in the application are assumed to be true, the Board may dismiss the application without a hearing or consultation. In its decision, the Board will set out its reasons.
3In addition, section 96 is a discretionary section. That is, the Board retains a discretion not to inquire into an application if there is no labour relations purpose in doing so. In this case, the Board notes that no application for certification was filed, no cards or ballots are in issue, and no vote has been held. Even if one assumes that the statements attributed to Mr. Hanecak were made, it does not appear that they had any intimidatory effect, or any lasting effect on the individual named, nor is it alleged that the statements were broadcast generally.
4Before the Board considers the motion to dismiss, it would like to have the submissions of the applicant. Specifically the Board asks the applicant to address the following issues:
What authority is there for the proposition that an individual may act in contravention of section 5?
How do the facts as alleged in the application make out a violation of section 76?
What authority is there for the proposition that the Board has the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Schedule “A”?
What labour relations purpose would be served by the relief sought in Schedule A, assuming the Board has jurisdiction to grant such relief?
Any other submission with respect to the motion to dismiss the application.
The applicant need not address the issue raised in paragraph 3 of Schedule “A” to the response.
5The applicant is directed to file its submissions, if any, with the Board on or before July 6, 2001. The responding parties are directed not to respond to these submissions unless directed to do so by the Board.
6I am seized for the purposes of this preliminary matter only.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board