The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has dismissed the majority of a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) worker’s complaints against his union, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 (the Union), citing undue delay. The Board, however, ruled that two of the employee’s allegations related to his union’s duty of fair representation should proceed.
The case, presided over by Vice-Chair Danna Morrison, stems from an application filed on June 4, 2024, under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The applicant, a former TTC employee terminated on Jan. 18, 2024, alleges that the Union violated section 74 of the Act, which mandates that unions represent their members without arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct. The worker contended that the Union failed to adequately support him in six separate incidents spanning from 2019 to 2023.
The Board assessed the complaints for timeliness and substantive merit, dismissing the first four complaints due to delay. The Board highlighted that, barring exceptional circumstances, allegations predating one year from the filing date would generally be considered untimely. Since five of the six complaints predated June 4, 2023, the applicant bore the onus to justify the delay. While self-represented and assisted by his spouse, the applicant argued that his ignorance of his rights contributed to the delay. However, the Board ruled this insufficient, stating, “ignorance of one’s rights might explain some delay, it cannot excuse a lengthy delay in its entirety.”
The Board found no reason to override standard practice and dismissed the first four complaints, asserting they were not sufficiently connected to form a pattern of conduct by the Union. However, Morrison noted that the fifth complaint, which allegedly occurred on May 16, 2023, fell just within the acceptable timeframe and warranted consideration, as did the sixth complaint from December 26, 2023.
The remaining complaints allege that the Union acted unfairly by failing to address harassment and discrimination incidents and by inadequately representing the worker during disputes with the TTC. In one instance, the applicant claims the Union did not intervene when he faced intimidation from Fare Enforcement Officers, resulting in drug and alcohol testing and eventual dismissal. In the sixth incident, the applicant alleges that the Union mishandled a sexual harassment case involving a customer and failed to challenge an unsubstantiated investigation by the TTC.
The Board determined that these complaints presented enough detail to establish a possible violation of the Act, stating, “the Board is not satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood that a violation of the Act can be established on the facts as alleged.” Consequently, both complaints will proceed to a hearing, with the Board emphasizing that it will examine only the Union’s conduct, excluding any actions by the TTC or third parties.
The Board has referred the matter to the Registrar for scheduling and confirmed that further proceedings will focus solely on the Union’s duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Act.
For more information, see Neal Ramchaitar v Amalgamated Transit Union, 2024 CanLII 96674 (ON LRB).
