Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3654-00-U Date: June 27, 2001
Between: Adesh Rampersad, Ravi Rampersad, Anil Gayadeen, Neil Rampersad, Les Rampersad, Applicants v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Responding Party v. Technicolor Canada Inc., Intervenor.
Before: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act.
2The responding party ("the union") asserts that the applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case against the union. Technicolor Canada Inc ("the employer") asserts that it is unable to reply in detail as in its view there are "...no details of any alleged violation of the Act" and no allegation "...that the Act has been violated by anyone".
3The applicant claims that he has lost his employment. He further asserts that people with less seniority are being called back to work without there being postings for available job opportunities. He states that the union was told that he (and he suggests others) wanted to file a grievance on this matter and was told by the union that it wanted to speak to the company before doing anything.
4Although the application is lacking in detail and the other parties may wish to request particulars from the applicant, I cannot conclude that the application does not make out a prima facie case. The applicant asserts that he has lost his employment and perceives that others are being given positions and he is not. The union and the employer may well have another position to advance but that does not mean that a prima facie case does not exist as such a determination must be based on the facts as set out in the application.
5The matter is referred to the Registrar to be processed in the usual course.
"Marilyn Silverman" for the Board