0502-01-U Antonio Edmilson Bellan, Applicant v. Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, Responding Party v. Liverton Hotels International Inc. carrying on business as Metropolitan Hotel, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 14, 2001
1. This is a complaint filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging that the responding party (the “union”) has violated section 74 of the Act.
2. The union asserts that the complaint ought to be dismissed as failing to disclose a prima facie breach of the Act. Further, both the union and the intervenor (the “employer”) assert that the applicant’s concerns are the subject of a grievance which is still in process.
3. Before determining whether to dismiss the application without a hearing, the Board will provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the submissions of the union and the employer.
4. The applicant may wish to indicate which facts asserted by the union and the employer are agreed to and which are disputed. In particular, the applicant may wish to confirm or deny the submissions that his concerns are the subject of a grievance which has not yet been through all the steps of the grievance procedure. In the absence of any indication that facts asserted by the other parties are untrue, the Board may accept them as true and provable.
5. The applicant should understand that the complaint he has filed is one against the union not against the employer. In that context the Board notes that the relief he has sought under section 7 of his application, to the extent it is (as it appears to be) directed at the employer, appears, certainly at first blush, to be inappropriate and not the type of relief the Board typically grants when such cases succeed.
6. The most typical remedy granted in cases of this type is an order directing the union to file and/or advance a grievance on behalf of the applicant. If that process has been undertaken and is as yet incomplete (as opposed, perhaps, to moribund), there may be little reason for or likelihood that the Board would address the matter at this time.
7. The applicant is directed to file submissions he may wish to make within three weeks of the date of this decision.
8. The Board will review this matter once those submissions have been filed or the time for doing so has passed.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board