3113-00-U Debbie Nomm, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1823, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 11, 2001
1The name of the responding party in the title of proceedings is amended to read: “Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1823”.
2This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging a violation of section 74. In its response to the application the responding party asks that the application be dismissed without a consultation because it does not disclose facts upon which the Board could find that a violation of the Act has occurred.
3The Board does not consider it appropriate to exercise its discretion not to proceed with this application. The responding party claims that its withdrawal of the applicant’s grievance was appropriate because the company had undertaken that two of the documents labelled “warning” which had been grieved were “counselling” and would not be referred to in any further proceeding. Whether or not that explanation would be sufficient, the grievance which was withdrawn also referred to a “final warning” dated March 30, 2001. That warning refers to previous reviews and interviews and is clearly not a letter of “counselling”. There is no explanation with respect to the status of this warning or if and how it was considered.
4The responding party also argues that the complaint is premature because the applicant claims that the “warnings” could affect future job prospects. However, that is always the case with warnings and if they are to be grieved they must be grieved in a timely way, not, as the responding party suggests, when further discipline has occurred. The Board therefore does not consider it appropriate to exercise its discretion at this time not to proceed with this application. This application will be processed in the normal course.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board