Terex Bartell Limited v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada)
1880-00-U Terex Bartell Limited, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Responding Party.
1922-00-U Francis Naraine and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 252, Applicant v. Terex Bartell Limited, Responding Party.
APPEARANCES: Muneshwar Deopaul for Francis Naraine; Stewart Saxe for Terex Bartell Limited; Catherine Gilbert, Sukvindor Johl and Kim Birmingham for CAW and its Local 252.
BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 23, 2001
1The CAW and the employer sought leave of the Board to withdraw the complaints in Board Files Nos. 1992-00-U and 1880-00-U on the basis that they had been resolved as part of the settlement of their collective agreement.
2By decision dated December 21, 2000, the Board declined to grant leave to withdraw on the basis that the CAW had identified both itself and Francis Naraine under the heading “applicant” in the complaint in Board File No. 1922-00-U, and the Board had been advised that Mr. Naraine did not wish to withdraw his application. The Board directed Mr. Naraine to file a statement of his intention with respect to his application in Board File No. 1922-00-U.
3By decision dated March 28, 2001, the Board, having regard to the submissions it had received from Mr. Naraine, determined as follows:
These matters are hereby referred to the Registrar in order to list them for hearing for the purpose of hearing the evidence and representations of the parties as to whether or not these matters have been settled.
4The matters were set down for hearing on May 16, 2001, but adjourned at the request of Mr. Naraine. They came on again for hearing on July 18, 2001.
5At the outset of the hearing on July 18, 2001, the Board requested that the parties briefly state their positions with respect to the issue of whether or not the employer and the CAW had effectively settled these matters. Following those submissions, the Board issued the following oral ruling:
Having regard to Mr. Deopaul’s concession that the union had authority to settle the complaint in Board File No. 1922-00-U on his client’s behalf, the Board is satisfied that the union and the employer have settled the complaints in Board Files Nos. 1922-00-U and 1880-00-U, and leave to withdraw them is hereby granted.
Mr. Deopaul made it clear in his submissions that the essence of his client’s complaint is that the union breached its duty of fair representation to him in settling Board File No. 1922-00-U. That matter is not before the Board. If Mr. Naraine wishes to pursue those allegations, he must file a section 96 complaint alleging a breach of section 74 of the Act.
“Mary Anne McKellar”
for the Board