Teofil Nedelcu v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220
0703-00-U Teofil Nedelcu, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Responding Party v. Grand River Hospital Corporation, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 14, 2000
1This is an application filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act') alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act. This application was filed on May 31, 2000.
2The applicant alleges a violation based on the failure of the Service Employees International Union, Local 220 (“the union”) to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.
3The union denies the applicant’s version of events and further requests that the Board dismiss this matter on the basis that it is untimely.
4The applicant was terminated from employment on September 11, 1998. He was advised of the union’s decision not to proceed to arbitration on his behalf by letter dated November 9, 1998. That decision was confirmed by letter dated December 23, 1998 after the decision was appealed through the union’s internal processes. The instant application was filed some 17 months after the union’s final decision was conveyed to the applicant. It would appear therefore that in respect of the Board’s approach on delay this application appears to be untimely.
5The Board need not inquire into any particular application under section 96 of the Act and I have discretion pursuant to subsection 96(4) of the Act to dismiss this application should I determine that it is inappropriate to inquire into it. It is well-established that the Board will, generally, not inquire into applications which are brought after a reasonable period of time has elapsed from the events complained about. The principles applicable to dismissal on the basis of delay are well-known (see, for example, The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, [1982] OLRB Rep. Mar. 420, at paras. 20-22). In deciding whether or not an application should be dismissed on the ground of delay, the Board will consider the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, the relief sought, and the relative prejudice to the parties should the application be permitted to proceed, or be dismissed. The Board recognizes that in cases of extreme delay the party or parties required to respond are at a disadvantage because witnesses disappear, memories fade, and documents are no longer available to allow a party to defend itself properly.
6The applicant has not addressed the issue of the delay in his application. The applicant shall be provided with the opportunity to explain the reason for the delay. These submissions must be received by the Board within two weeks from the date of this decision. Upon receipt of the applicant’s submissions on this issue, the Board will determine what further steps will be taken. These may include listing the matter for hearing or consultation, seeking further written submissions from any party, or dismissing the application on the basis of the material before it. If the applicant does not file a reply within the time stipulated in this decision, the application will be deemed to be dismissed as untimely without the need for any further decision to issue.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board