Primrat Sukhdeo v. United Steelworkers of America

1106-01-U Primrat Sukhdeo, Applicant v. United Steelworkers of America, Responding Party v. SKD Company, Intervenor.

BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 4, 2001

[1]. This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) alleging violation of section 74. The responding party and the intervenor both submit that the application should be dismissed on a prima facie basis, without a consultation or hearing.

[2]. The Board has discretion to dismiss an application under section 96 of the Act where the facts asserted in the application would fail to establish a violation of the Act even if assumed to be true. In the present application, the applicant’s employment was terminated on October 27, 2000 on the ground of theft from the company. The union grieved the termination and the matter ultimately went before a sole arbitrator, E. E. Palmer, Q.C. On March 20, 2001, the arbitrator rendered a decision dismissing the grievance. A copy of the arbitration award filed with the Board by the responding party indicates that the arbitrator was satisfied that the theft occurred and that the grievor attempted to excuse his behaviour on the ground that other employees were engaged in the same kind of activity. This information is confirmed by the applicant’s own explanation of what transpired at the arbitration hearing:

The union was informed [of the dismissal] and took the case up. The union could not settle it so it went to arbitration. At the arbitration I was asked what was my reason for taking the used material. I told them I was going to sell them because the company have no use for them and most of the people working there is taking them.

[3]. The application before the Board reiterates the same assertions that the applicant made at the arbitration hearing, namely that he should not have been dismissed because other employees were guilty of the same kind of conduct. However, the arbitration award shows that these submissions were dealt with at the arbitration hearing and were considered unconvincing and unproved. The arbitrator found that the applicant was engaged in conduct that he knew was wrong, given that he attempted to hide the stolen materials in his van. The applicant is attempting to re-litigate the matter before this Board. What he finds to be “unfair” is his dismissal by the employer after many years of service:

I gave 18 ½ years of service in SKD Company with no disciplinary record and good quality of work and I pay my union dues for 18 ½ years and they seen that I lost my job. I paid all my taxes for 18 ½ years and I was kicked out without a cent. I think that is unfair representation or it is discrimination.

[4]. The application itself does not outline how the responding party is alleged to have violated section 74 by conduct that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Indeed, as mentioned, the facts asserted by the applicant show that the union took the grievance all the way to an arbitration hearing. The union is not bound to do anything further for the applicant. Indeed, one must wonder what remedy the Board might contemplate, if the applicant were successful, given that the matter has already been arbitrated.

[5]. Even if they are assumed to be true, the applicant’s assertions do not show that there was a violation of section 74 by the union. The Board therefore finds that the applicant has failed to assert a prima facie case for a violation of section 74. Accordingly, the Board exercises its discretion not to inquire further into this complaint.

[6]. The application is dismissed.

“Anthony Brown”

for the Board