Maurice LeBlanc v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113
2326-00-U Maurice LeBlanc, Applicant v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, Responding Party v. Toronto Transit Commission, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: H. Kopyto appeared on behalf of the applicant; Brendan J. Moran, Paul Callaghan and Paul McLavghlin appeared on behalf of the responding party; Dolores Barbini and Mike Aziz appeared on behalf of the intervenor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 4, 2001
1This is an application filed pursuant to section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, (“the Act”) alleging that the responding party (the “union”) has violated section 74 of the Act.
2Essentially, the applicant complains of the union’s decision to not advance his discharge grievance to arbitration.
3The applicant was discharged from his employment on July 13, 1999. It was alleged that he had been observed smoking marijuana on three different specific occasions while on duty. It was also alleged that he had admitted (to a fellow bargaining unit employee who unknown to the applicant was an employer “operative”) to previously having smoked marijuana while on duty.
4The applicant denies the truth of each of these allegations.
5A grievance was filed contesting the discharge. The union ultimately decided, however, to not advance that grievance to arbitration.
6A consultation was held in which each of the parties was provided with an opportunity to describe the nature of the case from their own perspective as well as the evidence they anticipated calling should the matter proceed to a full hearing.
7In view of the conclusion at which I have arrived the dominant characteristic of this decision will be its brevity.
8I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate to finally dispose of this matter on the basis of only the information placed before me in the consultation.
9The consultation will, however, continue. When it convenes, the union will be charged with calling all of its relevant evidence to fully establish the basis upon which it decided not to advance the applicant’s grievance to arbitration. That evidence will be subject to cross-examination.
10At the conclusion of that evidence, I will hear the parties’ submissions about how the case ought to be determined (including any submissions they may wish to make about what further evidence, if any, I ought to hear).
11The Registrar is directed to list this matter for continuation of the consultation. The registrar may wish to consult with the parties regarding their availability and the number of days required for the consultation.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board