0639-01-U David Wayne Sager, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 183, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 10, 2001
1This is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, (“the Act”) alleging that the responding party (the “union”) has violated section 74.
2The nature of the applicant’s complaint is not entirely clear.
3It appears that, as a result of a policy grievance, a recent job posting competition in which the applicant had been the successful candidate, was rerun. It appears that the thrust of the policy grievance related to questions of posted required qualifications. In the new posting changes were made to the required qualifications. The applicant was unsuccessful in the new competition.
4Neither the applicant nor the union has provided any information relating to the basis upon which the selection was made (nor have they provided any collective agreement language which bears on the process).
5It appears that there may be two separate grievances which the applicant wishes the union to advance on his behalf.
6The first would appear to relate to the cancellation of the first job posting grievance. The union has advised that it cannot or will not advance such a grievance since doing so would be dramatically inconsistent with the position it had advanced in the policy grievance.
7There does appear, however, to be a second grievance which was filed on behalf of the applicant. This grievance appears to directly challenge the results of the second competition and claims the job in question for the applicant.
8That grievance appears to have been prepared by the union and the applicant and filed with the employer on May 23, 2001. The instant application was filed with this Board two days later. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that we have been provided with little information about the state or progress of that grievance.
9The union asserts that the application fails to disclose a prima facie violation of the Act and that the Board ought to exercise its discretion to not inquire into the matter any further.
10Before disposing of that request the Board will provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond.
11Should he wish to do so, the applicant is directed to file his response with the Board and deliver it to the other parties within three weeks of the date of this decision. Should he elect to file such a response, he should indicate which portions of the union’s response are agreed and which are disputed. In the absence of any contrary indication, the Board may accept the facts pleaded by the union as true and provable. In addition, the applicant may wish to explain which provisions of the collective agreement are relied upon and said to have been violated in relation to either or both of the grievances. He may also wish to describe the status of his most recent grievance.
12Should the union wish to further address any of these latter factors they, too, may do so in writing within the same timeframe.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board