1530-01-U Maria Lourdes Barros, Applicant v. HERE – Local 75, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 25, 2001
This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) which alleges a breach of section 74 of the Act.
The responding party has filed a response in which it requests that the Board dismiss the application because, in its view, the application does not disclose a prima facie breach of the Act.
The application makes two allegations. The first is that the union did not, as she requested, conduct an investigation of the employer’s record of gratuities paid, for the year 2000. The second allegation is that a steward refused to view the applicant’s personal file with her as she had requested.
The responding party has responded to the merits of each of the allegations.
The application discloses a prima facie case, there being no dispute that the applicant made the requests which are alleged to have been made. There is a simple factual dispute about whether the union responded to the two requests made by the applicant.
Accordingly, the matter can proceed to consultation. However, the Board notes that if the trade union did what it says it did, it is unlikely to have breached the Act. Moreover, even if the trade union failed to answer the applicant’s requests, the applicant’s remedy will likely be restricted to obligating the union to investigate the gratuities and/or reviewing the applicant’s personal file.
It is apparent, therefore, that these matters should be resolved prior to a consultation. The Board urges the parties to meet with a Labour Relations Officer to settle these issues. The matter is accordingly, referred to the Manager of Field Services.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board