Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 2915-00-U Date: May 10, 2001
Between: Grantley H. Howell, Applicant v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7135 and National Steel Car Limited, Responding Parties.
Before: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”), alleging violation of section 74 of the Act.
2The responding party filed a response asserting that the application fails to disclose sufficient detail about the applicant’s complaint, and, in particular, about the alleged “violent attacks” perpetrated upon the applicant by others.
3On February 21, 2001, the applicant filed additional information pertaining to his complaint. The responding party union objects to the filing of this additional information. It also states that the new material provides no further information about the alleged attacks and that the application should be dismissed without a hearing.
4The Board grants leave to the applicant to file the additional material. There is no significant prejudice to the responding party in permitting the filing at this juncture.
5The difficulty faced by the applicant is that the information he has filed does not explain the basis for the complaint under section 74. The applicant filed a copy of a letter dated June 13, 2000, which indicates that the applicant filed a grievance in respect of “failure to pay sick benefits”. The letter from the union explains that the applicant’s grievance is being withdrawn by the union because “you have not provided the Union with a substantive and objective medical report that sets out clearly the illness that left you unable to perform any and every duty of your occupation or employment.” The materials also indicate that the union and employer had gone so far as to set a date with an arbitrator.
6The applicant asserts that he was “attacked” by four individuals (Gary Clarke, Bill Baker, Tim Maleske and Chris Winterburn) in the month of April, 2000. He goes on to assert that Mr. Baker attacked him on or about the date of the letter abandoning the applicant’s grievance. Although there are no specifics about these alleged “violent attacks”, they appear to have been verbal rather than physical. Beyond the alleged attacks, there are no concrete allegations of union conduct that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. It appears that the union decided to withdraw the applicant’s grievance when it determined that it did not have sufficient medical evidence. The applicant does not state how that decision was made in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. It is not clear whether the applicant is working for National Steel Car or whether he is off work on disability. Moreover, the applicant has not specified what remedies he seeks should his application be successful. The union is entitled to know what the applicant expects to obtain through this application.
7The responding party is correct in asserting that it should not be expected to respond to assertions that can best be described as vague and sketchy. The Board will not put the responding party to the time and expense of responding to an application that is comprised of bald allegations and unconnected facts. The applicant has a duty under the Board’s Rules of Procedures to provide sufficient details of all the material facts relied upon, including how, when and where the events are alleged to have occurred, along with who was involved and what they are alleged to have done.
8The Board has discretion as to whether or not to proceed with an application alleging violation of section 74. In my view, the best course in the present circumstances given the paucity of information in the application and the absence of a requested remedy, is to terminate the instant application without prejudice to the right of the applicant to bring another application, within 30 days of the date of this decision, that provides sufficient details stating the basis of the complaint and the remedies sought, in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure.
9The application is terminated.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board