1274-01-U Miguel De La Gala, Applicant v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 9042-65, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 20, 2001
The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: United Steelworkers of America, Local 9042-65,
This is an application filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (“the Act”) in which the applicant claims that the responding trade union (“the union”) has violated section 74 of the Act.
This decision deals with the union’s request that the application be dismissed on a prima facie basis for failure to make out a case for the order or remedies requested.
The applicant contends that the union failed in its duty to fairly represent him after his termination from employment on April 3, 2001. He also advances allegations relating to a shift change issue, which is the subject of another proceeding before the Board (different constituted and bearing Board File No. 2541-00-U). By way of remedy on his termination issue the applicant requests reinstatement and back pay from his employer from the date of his termination. The applicant admits his termination grievance has been scheduled for arbitration and that the union has informed of this.
The applicant alleges that certain collective agreement time limits for processing his termination grievance were not complied with because of the union’s lack of interest in his case. If there is some relevance to this that may form the basis of a section 74 allegation it has not yet arisen.
At this time the allegation concerning the shift change is before another panel of the Board for disposition. It cannot therefore form the subject-matter of this application and I will not consider those allegations.
The termination grievance is proceeding to arbitration and has in fact been scheduled for October 2001. In spite of the applicant’s assertion regarding his understanding of time limits, the matter is proceeding to arbitration. I dismiss this remaining aspect of the application as disclosing no prima facie case because it is premature. This is without prejudice to the applicant’s right to bring an application at a later date in the event of allegations that arise in future that could constitute a violation of the Act.
The application is therefore dismissed.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board