0828-01-U Michel Gendron, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1750, Responding Party v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Intervenor.

BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 17, 2001

1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging violation of section 74.

2The applicant’s complaint is about whether his position has been given the proper job classification. He asserts that the responding party union refuses to continue with a grievance pertaining to his classification and is therefore in violation of section 74 of the Act.

3The responding party states that Article 18 of its collective agreement with the employer, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, contains provisions expressly dealing with job evaluation and classification and that it declined to continue with the applicant’s grievance in order to abide by the process set out in Article 18. The responding party also advised the Board, on July 24, 2001, that it is processing the applicant’s dispute about his job classification in accordance with the collective agreement and that the Joint (union/management) Job Evaluation Committee at this workplace will be meeting with the applicant in an effort to resolve the matter.

4The responding party disputes that there has been a violation of section 74. Moreover, it asserts that the applicant has not pleaded a prima facie case and that the application is premature and should be dismissed.

Decision

5The Board has discretion not to proceed with an application under section 96. In the present case, the applicant’s job classification is being discussed by the responding party and the applicant’s employer, as envisaged by the collective agreement. The result of these discussions may or may not satisfy the applicant, but in the Board’s view it is premature to schedule a consultation or hearing at this juncture, when the underlying classification issue may be resolved.

6The responding party should have the opportunity to utilize the job evaluation scheme in the collective agreement before it is required to answer this particular complaint under section 74. Accordingly, the Board has decided to terminate the application as being premature, on the expectation that the parties will proceed forthwith under Article 18 of the collective agreement (if they have not already done so). The termination is without prejudice to the right of the applicant to promptly file a fresh application should he continue to be of the view that the union has violated section 74, after the Article 18 process has run its course. Any such application must comply with the Board’s Rules of Procedure and must state all material facts and documents relied upon by the applicant. The applicant should be aware that the Board is not an appeal route for employees who are dissatisfied with their job classification. Under section 74, an applicant has the onus to prove that the union has acted in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

7The application is terminated.

“Anthony Brown”

for the Board