1433-01-U Joe Bretsznajder, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 434, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 24, 2001
1The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: “Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 434”.
2This 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 of the Act.
3The application is sparse and it is perhaps difficult to define the precise nature of the complaint.
4The union asserts that it ought therefore to be dismissed without a hearing or consultation.
5One might suggest that the union’s response is somewhat disingenuous. Indeed, the union may have assisted in a more timely resolution of this matter had it opted to file a full response rather then merely registering its objection to the sufficiency of the application. However, that is not to say that the union’s position is not without some technical merit.
6For while the union appears, it its response, to have understood the applicant’s allegation that the acting union president “arbitrarily and unfairly agreed to a resolution of grievance 2000-01”, the applicant has provided little more than that assertion to describe his complaint. (One might guess, but it would have to be a guess, that the applicant is complaining about a resolution which, at least from his perspective, deprived him of the full retroactivity to which he was entitled).
7In any event, the applicant is directed to file with the Board and to deliver to the other parties, not later than October 15, 2001, a brief written statement outlining the material facts upon which he relies. It is not necessary for him to file any further documents although he may, of course, refer to documents he has already filed. This statement should simply outline the relevant events and clearly identify what it is the union is alleged to have done (or not done) that amounts to a violation of section 74 of the Act. He should also clearly set out what the union ought to have done (or not done) to avoid any unlawful conduct on its part.
8Once the submissions are filed and delivered, the union will have two weeks to file a reply and, if it so chooses, to renew its request that the application be dismissed without a hearing or consultation.
9The Board will review the matter again, if necessary, after the filings herein directed have been completed or the time for so doing has passed.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board