Ontario Labour Relations Board
0073-01-U Premanand Sukhoo, Applicant v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 506 and The Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 17, 2001
1. This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"). It purports to be a complaint under section 74. Section 74 pertains to the duty of a union to represent its members in a manner that is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Section 74 states:
- 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.
2. The responding party union submits by letter dated April 11, 2001 that the applicant should be required to provide particulars to enable it to file a response.
3. The Board has read the application and its attachments. They provide a great deal of information about the applicant’s disputes with his former employer, the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. However, within this voluminous history, there is nothing explaining how the union violated its duty under section 74. There is only a bald assertion that the union’s “lack of experience” apparently led to a “corrupted” collective agreement and that the union aided “management power over the staff”. In contrast, the Convention Centre is accused of wrongful dismissal, fraudulent acts, improper scheduling of work, creating hostility, discriminating among staff, unclear rules, exploiting staff, harassment, etc. There is no information about how the union has failed to represent the applicant in respect of his disputes with his employer.
4. The applicant also filed a letter dated April 12, 2001 which seeks to add to his original application. The letter provides no further facts in support of the complaint, but seeks the decertification of the union, reimbursement of union dues and “charges” against two individuals. These are not remedies that would be granted even if the applicant were successful in this application.
5. It is possible that the applicant does not understand the purpose of a section 74 complaint.
6. In the absence of a complaint against the responding party union that bears any relationship to the union’s duty under section 74, the issue arises as to whether the Board should exercise its discretion not to hear the matter. In exercising its discretion, the Board may consider the applicant’s likelihood of success, whether the Board would grant the remedies sought even if the applicant were successful, and whether hearing the application would serve a labour relations purpose.
7. After carefully considering the matter in light of the absence of any material facts alleged in respect of the union’s conduct and in light of the remedies sought, the Board has decided that the application should be terminated without prejudice to the applicant’s right to file and serve a new application (within 30 days of the date of this decision) that complies with the Board’s Rules of Procedure by setting out in detail what his complaints are in respect of the union and outlining all of the material facts about how, who, when and where the alleged events occurred. In my view, this result is fairer to all the parties than simply permitting the applicant to file “particulars”, because any such particulars would not rectify a complaint that is essentially aimed at the employer. Particulars would have been ordered if there were at least a foundation to this application on its face.
8. The application is terminated on the basis set out above.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board