2816-00-U Charles Cutler, Applicant v. Teamsters Local Union 880, Responding Party.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 19, 2001
This matter is an application pursuant to section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in which Charles Cutler asserts that Teamsters Local Union 880 (the “union”) failed to adequately represent him in connection with the termination of his employment from National Grocers Co. Ltd. in January 2000.
The union has filed a response in this matter. By letter dated April 4, 2001, the union requests that this matter be dismissed without a hearing for two reasons.
First, the union asserts that a grievance was filed in connection with Mr. Cutler’s termination and that Minutes of Settlement, signed by Mr. Cutler, were executed on January 11, 2000. A copy of such Minutes of Settlement was filed with the union’s response. The union points out that, while Mr. Cutler asserts in his application that the union “coerced” him into signing the Minutes of Settlement, there are no facts set out in the application that support such an assertion. The union asserts that, as a result of the settlement, the application does not assert facts that, if true, establish a breach of section 74 of the Act.
Secondly, the union asserts that this application was not filed until 11 months after the execution of the Minutes of Settlement. The Board has often refused to enquire into complaints that were not filed expeditiously following the events upon which the complaint is based. The union submits that, in view of the passage of time between the events that form the basis of Mr. Cutler’s complaint and the filing of this application, the Board should exercise its discretion and dismiss the application.
The Board is inclined to grant the union’s request and dismiss this matter without a hearing. One of the distinguishing features of labour relations is that it operates in the context of a relationship between an employer and a trade union that is continuing. For that reason, amongst others, the settlement of disputes is particularly desirable. The binding nature of such settlements is crucial in order to permit the parties to the relationship to know what issues exist between them and facilitate ongoing efforts at resolution of such issues. If issues that were understood to be resolved, are permitted to be reopened, the resolution of all issues will be placed in jeopardy. It is essential that the Board’s jurisprudence encourages and reinforces binding settlements. While the application contains a bold statement that Mr. Cutler was coerced into signing the Minutes of Settlement it contains no facts that support such a statement. On the basis of the application as presently filed, there is no reason not to hold Mr. Cutler to the Minutes of Settlement that he executed.
Further, Mr. Cutler failed to file the instant application for a period of 11 months following the execution of the Minutes of Settlement. Such a delay, absent some compelling explanation from Mr. Cutler as to why he did not file his application earlier, would likely cause this Board to refuse to enquire into the complaint.
Should Mr. Cutler have any submissions he would like to make in response to the union’s request that this matter be dismissed without a hearing, he is hereby directed to file such submissions with the Board and deliver them to the union and the employer, no later than May 4, 2001.
I will remain seized for the purpose of dealing with the union’s request that this matter be dismissed without a hearing.
“D. L. Gee”
for the Board