3388-00-U Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, Local 416, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local Union No. 79, Responding Party v. City of Toronto, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 28, 2001
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) in which it is asserted that the responding party has violated section 74 of the Act.
2The responding party has made two preliminary arguments which, it says, should cause the Board to dismiss this application at this stage. The applicant has been given an opportunity to file submissions on these issues and has in fact done so.
3The responding party’s preliminary issues are that the applicant does not have standing to bring an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act, and that the application should be dismissed for delay. The responding party relies on Caressant Care Rest Home [2000] O.L.R.D. No. 96 dated January 20, 2000 in which the Board stated at paragraph 6:
- The union objects to the inclusion of the Canadian Health Care Workers as an alleged applicant. The union contends that a rival trade union cannot be a party to a section 74 complaint. Such complaints can be brought, in the union’s submission, only by individual employees in the affected bargaining unit. I agree with that submission. Section 74 is intended to protect bargaining unit members from unfair representation by their bargaining agent. The Canadian Health Care Workers does not fall into that category and it is struck as an applicant in respect of the section 74 complaint. Given that the complaint under section 76 has been dismissed, the Canadian Health Care Workers is no longer a party to the proceedings.
4It is apparent that the Board’s determination in Caressant Care Rest Home was made without a hearing. It is also unclear as to what extent the issue was argued. Therefore, I am reluctant to rely on that decision at this time as the sole basis for determining that a union cannot under any circumstances bring an application which alleges a breach of section 74 of the Act.
5The case before me involves quite novel facts and I am therefore reluctant to dispose of the matter without a hearing. I prefer the approach of the Board in Robbins [2001] O.L.R.D. No. 273 dated January 24, 2001. The issues raised by the responding party are best left to be argued at the end of the consultation/hearing into this matter.
6It is apparent from the pleadings that there are important issues between the parties, regardless of whether the application is ultimately successful. The Board therefore urges the parties to meet with a labour relations officer to attempt to resolve the underlying issues in this workplace which are the focus of this application.
7The matter is referred to the Registrar to be scheduled for consultation.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board