John D’Ambrosio v. IATSE Local 873 dated July 13, 2018 (Ont. LRB)

In its decision dated July 13, 2018, the Board dismissed an application filed by Applicant John D’Ambrosio alleging that the Union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 when it removed his name from the list of permit workers. The Applicant was placed on the Union’s permit workers’ list for the grip and electronic department. His status as a permit worker was later made “inactive” after complaints from other Union members regarding his lack of competency. The Applicant’s permit worker status was later reinstated on the condition that he could no longer work in the grips and electrical department. Later that year the Applicant was removed from the permit worker list altogether based on complaints from supervisors. The Applicant met with Local 873 president to discuss his removal and was asked for a list of references. The Applicant then sent a threatening text message alleging the Union discriminated against his rights which led to the filing of the present application.

The Applicant argued that the Union did not properly investigate the supervisors’ complaints and acted in an arbitrary manner in revoking his permit worker status. The Union argued that the allegations did not relate to the representation of him in relation to an employer party to a collective agreement. The supervisor was a member of the bargaining unit. The decision to remove him from the list of permit workers was made in the Union’s sole discretion on the basis of the complaints and the harassing text message sent to the Union president.

The Board agreed with the Union’s argument that section 74 of the Act does not apply to the fact in this case. The complaint was not about the quality of the union’s representation but the internal decision to remove him from the list of permit workers. The Board case law is clear that section 74 of the Act does not deal with internal union matters. The Applicant did not plead any facts that could constitute a violation of section 74.

For Full Decision Click Here

English (Canada)