Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 2586-00-U Date: May 22, 2001
Between: Mrs. Catena Tassone, Applicant v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 & 633, Responding Party v. Fortino’s (Highway 7 & Ansley) Ltd., Intervenor.
Before: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as amended (“the Act”) by Mrs. Catena Tassone (“Mrs. Tassone”) that the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 and 633 (“the UFCW”) has violated section 74 of the Act. Section 74 of the Act provides that a trade union must represent its members in a manner that is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
2The application concerns the actions of the UFCW following the termination of Mrs. Tassone’s employment with Fortino’s. By way of background, Mrs. Tassone’s employment was terminated by Fortino’s because she did not receive permission for a leave of absence to go to Italy to attend to her ill mother. A grievance was filed regarding the circumstances of the termination and subsequently that grievance was withdrawn by the UFCW.
3The UFCW requested, in its response, that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case. That is, it asked the Board to find that even if all the allegations made by Mrs. Tassone were true that there could be no finding by the Board that the Act had been violated.
4The Board has conducted a prima facie review of the application. In conducting this review, the Board only reviews the application and the facts set out therein and then considers the following question. If all of these allegations are true – is there any possible violation of the Act?
5Having conducted the review, the Board considers that there is only one circumstance as described by Mrs. Tassone that has any possible chance of being a violation of the Act. Mrs. Tassone signed a document giving her son, Nick Tassone, the authority to represent her. When he attempted to do so at her appeal of the UFCW’s decision not to proceed to arbitration of her grievance, he was told that he could not do so.
6That issue raises a prima facie case. There are no other issues that do. However, the Board may nevertheless exercise its discretion not to inquire into a complaint under section 96 of the Act. The UFCW, in its response, indicates that it has a by-law that only the member or a representative of the member who is a member of the UFCW could represent Mrs. Tassone at her appeal. Her son, Nick Tassone, is not a member.
7There are strong policy reasons for trade unions to insert by-laws or rules to this effect. As a result, appeals can be carried out in an efficient and effective manner where outside influences may otherwise be quite disruptive and counterproductive. Mrs. Tassone is directed to advise the Board on or before June 25, 2001 as to her position as to how the Act was violated by the trade union when it denied, pursuant to its by-laws, her son from participating in the appeal.
8This panel of the Board is seized.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board