1650-01-U Reid Taylor, Applicant v. O.P.S.E.U., Responding Party v. Ministry of Solicitor General, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 31, 2001
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) in which the applicant alleges that the responding party has violated section 74. The responding party and intervenor, in their response and intervention ask the Board to exercise its discretion not to proceed with the application. They claim that the applicant has not alleged facts upon which the Board could find that the responding party violated the Act.
2The facts do not appear to be in dispute. The applicant was a supply clerk who worked for the Ontario Provincial Police at the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The applicant’s job was relocated to Orillia and he chose not to move with it. He was on long term disability and when he was able to return to work he was given notice of lay off. In the notice letter dated April 24, 2001, he was given the choice of taking pay in lieu of notice; of remaining on notice for six months and seeking redeployment within a 40 kilometre radius of his former position or if no position was found he could seek redeployment anywhere in the province; finally he could choose a pension bridging option if he was eligible. The applicant chose to go on six months layoff and seek redeployment within a 40 kilometre radius only. No positions were found for him. He contacted the union in August 2001 about the matter. His union representative made inquiries and advised him that the Ministry had followed the collective agreement and that no positions were available within a 40 kilometre radius. The applicant then filed this application claiming that the union should find him a job.
3Section 74 of the Act provides as follows:
- 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.
4The responding party and intervenor claim that the application does not include factual allegations upon which the Board could find that the responding party represented the applicant arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith. The Board notes that the applicant has not even identified a position to the employer or the union to which he claims to be entitled. He only claims that such a position must exist. It is doubtful whether that assertion could found a complaint that the responding party has violated section 74. However, the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to the request by the responding party and the intervenor that the Board not proceed further with this application. The applicant should file submissions responding to that request and identify any facts alleged by the responding party or intervenor with which he disagrees. The submissions should be filed with the Board on, or before, November 13, 2001. Copies of the submissions should be provided to the responding party and to the intervenor. After reviewing the submissions the Board will decide whether to proceed further with this application.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board