The complainant was in a conflict with his employer and was on paid leave – he was called to a meeting with the employer to discuss his return to work – at the time of the meeting, the union had in its possession three medical certificates confirming that the complainant was of sound mind and that he was able to return to work – Mr. Hogan, one of the respondents and a union local representative, accompanied the complainant to the meeting and felt that it went well – instead of reporting to work, the complainant sent the employer a letter of resignation, which the employer accepted – the complainant subsequently asked the employer to reconsider its decision, which it refused to do – four months later, the complainant wrote to his two union representatives to determine his recourse, and they told him that he had no recourse against the employer’s decision – he filed a complaint against the two representatives, alleging that they had shown bad faith and had acted arbitrarily – at the hearing of his complaint, the complainant alleged for the first time that it was a disguised dismissal and that he had felt threatened during the meeting – the complainant objected to the employer allegedly having sent two sworn statements that the respondents had made in response to the complaint to the Acting Case Management Officer rather than to the Board’s Executive Director – the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, stating that its practice of treating correspondence sent to a registry officer as being sent to the executive director is compliant with the spirit of the Regulations – the respondents raised a preliminary objection alleging that the complainant was no longer an employee at the time he filed his complaint and that therefore section187 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (“the Act”) did not apply to him – the Board Member determined that even though the complainant was no longer paying dues, the union still had obligations toward him – the Board Member considered only the evidence that dealt with the complaint as written – section187 of the Act does not impose on the union an obligation of representation in all cases – the union was unaware that the complainant felt threatened at his reinstatement meeting – a union is unable to act on a situation of which it is unaware – the fact that the union had in hand two medical opinions that the employer provided to it does not prove that there was collusion or complicity between the employer and the union against the complainant – the respondents did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

Complaint dismissed.