HomeMy WebLinkAbout1794-03-U - Richards 03-12-08
Richards v. OPSEU LocalS'll, 2003 CanLII 6762 (ON L.R.B.) Page I of2
This document: 2003 CanUi 6162 L.R-B.)
Citation: Richards v OPSEU Local 571,2003 CanLl! 6762 (ON L R B )
Date: 20()3~ 1208
1794-03-U
Decision::; i3nq LE:gi$li3tiQn]
1794-03-U Dorrell Richards, Applicant v. OPSEU Local 571, Responding Party v. University
Health Network, Intervenor
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 8, 2003
I. This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O.
1995, c.l, as amended (the "Act"). The applicant alleges that OPSEU Local 571 ("the union") has
breached the duty of representation owed to her. The University Health Network ("the employer") has
asked that the application be dismissed either because it does not disclose a prima facie breach of section
74 or because there is no labour relations purpose to enquiring further. In a decision dated November 25,
2003, I directed the applicant to make any tillther submissions it wanted before I made a determination
about whether to dismiss this application for not alleging a prima facie case. Specifically, I wrote that a
union's failure to accept a grievor's wishes that it not compromise her grievance did not make out a prima
facie breach of the Act. While a trade union is required to consider a grievor's wishes, it is not required
to pursue them.
2. The applicant's representative has provided submissions which are not responsive to this
issue. He asserts that the union has not communicated with the grievor. Instead, she has discovered the
union's intentions from others. This was not part of the initial pleading. In addition, the applicant is
asserting, for the first time, that the union has not advised the applicant whether it will be utilizing the
grievance and arbitration procedure to advance a complaint pursuant to section 50 of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, lZ.?:(). 1??0, cg.]. as amended. The applicant would like to know the union's
intentions. I agree that this would be useful for the applicant to know, but to this point, it had not figured
into the relief sought The applicant asks me to direct the union to tell the applicant
3. Most fundamentally, the applicant has provided no more submissions in respect of its
assertion that the union's decision to seek a compromise of the grievance amounts to a breach of the duty
of fair representation. Instead, the applicant's representative has focused on this new assertion that the
union has not conveyed whether or not it intends to advance a complaint under the Occupational Health
and Safety Act. The applicant suggests that the failure to do so, in and of itself, would amount to a breach
of the duty of fair representation. I think not.
4. In any event, I agree that the union should te1l the applicant, preferably in writing, whether it
intends to file a complaint pursuant to section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That would
be prudent However, nothing has been pleaded that would cause me to order the union to do so.
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onlrb/2003/20030nlrb 16059 .html
9/30/2005
Richards v. OPSEU Local 571, 2003 CanLII 6762 (ON L.R.B.)
Page 2 of 2
5. I am not satisfied that the applicant has pleaded a prima facie breach of the duty of fair
representation and I am dismissing this application.
"Mary Ellen Cummings"
for the
Board
[About CanLH] [ConditiQn$ Qf US(3] [Adv~nG(3d $E.!C1fC;h] [H(3lp]
[PriYCl~yPolicy] [Mgi I i rig _listS] [If;QhnlQCiU..ibrmy]
[CQD1ClQtCa n L II]
by ..!:JXUM -.- _..
k'l lh't" Ft ":h1~n:I,,,n .)f _d'~\, Socwirc8 of Cx111/dd
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onlrb/2003/2003onlrbI6059.html
9/30/2005