[1980] OLRB Rep. September 1288
0453-80-U Herbert Jennings, Complainant, v. Corporation of the City of Toronto and The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local Union 43, Respondents
BEFORE: N. B. Satterfield, Vice-Chairman.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 12, 1980
In this complaint filed under section 79 of the Act, the Board issued a decision on July 11, 1980, which dealt with certain preliminary issues which had been raised at a hearing on July 9, 1980, one of which was a request of the complainant for an adjournment.
The Board granted the adjournment on conditions which were set out in paragraph 6 of that decision and which are quoted in full below:
"6. Consent for adjournment is granted on the following conditions:
(a) the complainant is to supply in writing to the Board and each respondent the full particulars of his complaint including the section or sections of the Act which he alleges the respondents to have violated and the concise statement of the material facts, actions and omissions of the respondents upon which he intends to rely for sustaining the complaint; in this respect the Board draws the complainants [sic] attention to section 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure; and
(b) that the complainant advise the Registrar not later than 30 calendar days from the date of this decision that he has complied with the requirements in item (a) of this paragraph and is ready to proceed with the complaint.
Should the complainant fail to contact the Registrar in accordance with item 6(b) above, the Board will apply section 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure which provides [sic] as follows:
'Where an application or complaint does not, in the opinion of the Board, make out a prima facie case for the remedy requested, the Board may dismiss the application or complaint without a hearing and it shall in its decision state the reason for the dismissal.'
A copy of the Board's decision was sent to the complainant on July 29th together with a formal Notice of Hearing. The hearing, which was scheduled for Monday, August 25, 1980, was cancelled by the Board because no particulars had been filed with it. As of the date of this decision, the complainant has not advised the Registrar that he has supplied each respondent with particulars in writing as stipulated in paragraph 6, item (a) of the Board's decision referred to above.
The complaint alleges violation of section 79 of the Act, a procedural section which does not create any rights which of themselves could be the basis of an offence under the Act. Furthermore, the complaint contains no allegation of conduct by either respondent which, if proven, would establish that any section of the Act had been violated. Accordingly, the complaint fails to establish on its face any grounds for the remedy requested and it is dismissed.