Zlatko Bogdanovski v. CAW Local 385
0891-01-U Zlatko Bogdanovski, Applicant v. CAW Local 385, Responding Party v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 30, 2001
- This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). The applicant alleges that the responding party, CAW, Local 385 (the union) has breached section 74 of the Act. Section 74 reads as follows:
- A trade union or council of trade unions, so long as it continues to be entitled to represent employees in a bargaining unit, shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit, whether or not members of the trade union or of any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be.
Although the Board’s application form directs the applicant to set out “How did the trade union’s activity violate section 74 of the Act”, and requires a detailing of all the facts on which the applicant relies, the applicant simply wrote “all facts and evidence have been noted by the union and the company”. In answer to the question of what remedy he seeks, the applicant wrote only “what is needed”. The sole allegation he has made is “grievances used against me”. The applicant has attached documents which consist of a number of grievances, and a letter of termination.
Both the union and the employer ask that this application be dismissed because it fails to set out any facts that, if proved, would lead the Board to conclude that the union had breached section 74 of the Act. Both the union and the employer also submit that the applicant has not set out enough facts for them to be able to understand the case they have to meet. Further, they submit that this application is premature because the grievance and arbitration procedure has not been exhausted.
I have concluded that this application should be dismissed. The applicant has not set out any allegations that if proven, would amount to a breach of the duty of fair representation. It is not enough for any applicant to fill in part of the application form, and leave the responding parties and the Board to guess what he is complaining about. Moreover, the Board does not have the jurisdiction to inquire into or “second guess” every action or decision undertaken by a trade union. The Board’s jurisdiction, derived from the statute, is to examine complaints about bad faith, discriminatory or arbitrary conduct in a union’s representation of an employee. The applicant had not set out any facts or made any allegations that fall within the Board’s jurisdiction.
It is worth adding that if, as the union and the employer allege, the applicant’s grievances are still under consideration by the workplace parties, it is unlikely that the Board would have enquired into the application in any event. The Board has consistently concluded that it is premature to bring a complaint of a breach of the duty of fair representation where the subject matter of the complaint is still in the grievance and arbitration procedure.
This application is dismissed.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board