HomeMy WebLinkAbout3430-06-U - Lucas 07-05-24
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
3430-06-U Tom Lucas, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union,
Responding Party.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 24, 2007
1. This is an application alleging that the responding party trade union ("the union" or
"OPSEU") has violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations
Act, 1995, as amended ("the Act").
2. By decision dated May 7, 2007, I invited the applicant's written submissions
concerning:
. the responding party's motion to dismiss the application on the
basis that it failed to disclose a prima facie case; and
. the labour relations purpose in inquiring further into this
complaint.
3. I also stated that the applicant's failure to respond with written submissions risked the
possibility that the application would be dismissed without further notice to the parties.
4. To date, the Board has not received any written submissions from the applicant.
5. In paragraph 7 of the May 7, 2007 decision, I stated:
7. The more significant question, in my view, is whether there is any
labour relations purpose in inquiring further into this matter even if the
applicant satisfies me that he has a prima facie case against the union.
Generally, unions are entitled to settle grievances on the terms they consider
appropriate, so long as the reasons for those decisions are not arbitrary,
discriminatory or in bad faith. The applicant states that because he took
early retirement a month after his grievances were filed, he stands to gain
less than other employees (though it appears he has done better under the
settlement than three other co-workers). He says that his union
representative told him that his remedies were limited to the period after the
date of the grievances. In other words, the applicant's only recourse was in
respect of a one-month window of employment, due to the fact that he had
retired shortly after complaining about his holiday pay. It is difficult to see
how the union's view of the applicant's remedial entitlement was arbitrary or
discriminatory, or disclosed bad faith, which further begs the question: what
was objectionable about the union's decision to settle the applicant's
grievances in the manner it did?
-2-
6. The applicant has not satisfied the Board's concerns that there is any meaningful
labour relations purpose served by inquiring further into the application. Accordingly, the
application is dismissed.
"Patrick Kelly"
for the Board