0480-01-U Oscar Tan, Applicant v. CAW Local 1980, Responding Party v. Visteon Canada Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 19, 2001
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging violation of section 74.
2Section 74 states as follows:
- A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
3The crux of the complaint appears to be that a change was made to the collective agreement between the responding party and the intervenor without the consent of the union membership. It appears that the collective agreement was amended and that the amendment was ratified. However, the applicant asserts that a subsequent modification was made to the agreement, in a manner that is asserted to have contravened section 74 of the Act.
4The responding party and intervenor have set forth in some detail the circumstances under which the amendment to their collective agreement was negotiated. They assert that they subsequently agreed to further benefits for the union membership in the event of a closure.
5The responding party and the intervenor submit that the application should be dismissed for failure to disclose a prima facie case.
6The Board may exercise its discretion to dismiss an application on a prima facie basis where it appears that even if all of the material facts asserted by the applicant are assumed to be true, the facts nevertheless do not support the complaint.
7Before the Board considers whether or not the applicant has pleaded a prima facie case, the applicant should have an opportunity to reply to the assertions made by the responding party and intervenor in order that the Board may determine the extent to which there is a factual dispute.
8The applicant has until July 6, 2001 to file with the Board a reply to the submissions of the responding party and intervenor, setting out the areas of agreement and disagreement with those submissions. Copies of the reply must be sent to the other parties at the same time or before the reply is filed with the Board.
9The applicant should be aware that if the Board does not receive reply submissions within the specified time, the application will be deemed terminated. If the Board does receive reply submissions, the Board will then consider whether or not the application should be dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose a prima facie case.
10I remain seized only as to the "prima facie" issue.
"Anthony Brown"
for the Board