Malcolm Slater et al. v. Canadian Auto Workers, Local 222

1465-01-U Malcolm Slater, H. Osborne, K. Fenlon, K. Abbott, D. Llewelyn, S. Taylor, and others, Applicants v. Canadian Auto Workers, Local 222, R. Adkins (Skilled Trades Chairperson - Peregrine Unit), Responding Party.

BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 21, 2001

1. This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch.1 (the "Act") in which the applicants allege that their bargaining agent (the Canadian Auto Workers Local 222 or "the Union") has violated the duty of fair representation set out in section 74 of the Act.

2. The dispute is quite clear. The applicants were laid off due to a closing of the operations where they worked. They are among the grievors in a grievance filed by the Union arising out of the shutdown of that part of the workplace. They state that the Union has not done enough to process the grievance to arbitration and that time limits have been violated. They give no particulars of what those time limits are or how they have been exceeded. They do not believe the Union intends to proceed to arbitration, a not surprising conclusion given the twenty-one months since the date of the grievance.

3. The Union responds that it is in fact processing the grievance, is treating the matter seriously, and in fact held a grievance meeting in July 2001. It states that the time limits have been observed under the collective agreement, although it too provides no details as to what they are or how the union's position has been preserved since December 23, 1999. It states the matter is "currently slated for arbitration by the CAW National Union."

4. The grievors' interest is in having the grievance litigated. The Union says it will do that. The applicants do not believe or trust the Union, presumably because of the length of time that has passed. If the matter is really proceeding to arbitration, there is no need for the Board to intervene at this point. The mistrust which the applicants have developed is not an allegation of a fact on which the Board could base a decision. On the other hand, twenty-one months is a long time to wait for any grievance to be arbitrated, even in as large and busy a local as the Union in this case. Since it appears from the grievance that any delay can be compensated for in money, the issue of timing of the arbitration is not as critical as it might be.

5. The Board directs the Union to advise the Board of when it expects the grievance to reach the point of arbitration. Provided there is some reasonable answer, this matter will not be referred to a consultation. If not, however, any such decision has no effect on:

   1. The Union's ability to settle or reassess the merits of the grievance at any time before arbitration; or
   2. The applicants' right to file another complaint if the matter is not handled in a manner consistent with the Act; if it turns out that time limits have been breached and the applicants suffer losses as a result of that breach; or for any other matter which arises or becomes apparent to the applicants after the date of this decision.

6. The Board directs the Union to advise it on or before the 17th of October of the date it expects the grievance to be referred to arbitration. I will remain seized of this application.

"David A. McKee"

for the Board