[1983] OLRB Rep. October 1721]
0118-83-U Anne Moore, Complainant, v. Ontario Nurses' Association, and The St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital, Respondents.
BEFORE: Kevin M. Burkett, Alternate Chairman and Board Members R. J. Swenor and W. F. Rutherford.
APPEARANCES: Mary Cornish, Anne Moore and Gary Musgrave for the complainant; Donald F O. Hersev, Q. C. and David Murray for the respondent Ontario Nurses Association; Brian O'Byrne and Don Sherin for the respondent The St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 31, 1983
The names of the respondents are amended to read "Ontario Nurses' Association and The St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital".
This is a complaint filed under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a violation of section 68 of the Act. The complaint, which was filed on April 14, 1983, is in respect of an alleged breach of section 68 which took place on December 30, 1981. The respondents take the position, by way of preliminary objection, that the Board should dismiss the complaint because of the delay in filing. In the alternative, the respondents maintain that, if the Board decides to hear the complaint on its merits, it should rule that the complainant is not entitled to compensation for the period extending from December 30, 1981 up to September 20, 1983 when, after an adjournment sine die at the request of the complainant on May 17, 1983, the matter was brought on for hearing. There were no conditions attached to the respondents' agreement to adjourn sine die on May 17th. The parties were agreed that we should deal with the timeliness issue before proceeding further.
The Board made an oral ruling at the October 25th hearing as follows, which it hereby confirms
"Having reviewed the evidence and considered the submissions of the parties in light of the criteria set out at para. 22 of The Corporation of the City of Mississauga case [1982] OLRB Rep. March 420, we hereby find that this complaint should be heard on the merits and we hereby so direct.
However we find that the complainant, by reason of her delay in bringing this complaint is not entitled to monetary compensation for the period February 1, 1982 to April 14, 1983. In our view the complaint could have been lodged by February 1, 1982. If the respondents had wished to save themselves harmless from the possibility of compensation for the period of the sine die adjournment they should have stipulated this as a condition of agreeing to the adjournment. Having failed to do so they are liable for compensation during this period.
- Having regard to all of the foregoing this matter is hereby referred to the Registrar to be listed for a hearing on the merits.