Ontario Labour Relations Board
1876-99-U Al Pascoal, Horacio Chow, Tu Tang and Harjinder Grewal, Applicants v. Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE), Responding Party v. Xerox Canada Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Russell Goodfellow, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 25, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”), alleging a breach of section 74.
2The applicants complain about the manner in which the trade union handled or, more accurately, failed to advance their concerns regarding the integration of their seniority with that of other employees on a previously separate seniority list. The applicants were four members of a bargaining unit that was integrated with the members of another bargaining unit upon the merger of two workforces in 1992 or 1993. Pursuant to the terms of their collective agreement, the applicants believe that their seniority should have been dovetailed with the members of the other, formerly separate, bargaining unit which was represented by a sister local. The applicants assert that their alleged collective agreement right was supported by a principle established in an arbitration award released in 1983.
3It is clear from the materials filed that the applicants’ local and the sister local formulated their positions on seniority integration in 1992 and that the events about which the applicants complain crystallized in the form of a “transition agreement” that was entered into with the employer in 1992 or 1993. Over the course of the ensuing six or seven year period the applicants took various steps to have their concerns addressed but to no avail. They filed this application on September 30, 1999.
4The union and the intervenor employer have asked the Board to dismiss the application on the basis of delay. The Board has no hesitation in doing so. Seniority integration issues are among the most difficult for unions to resolve and among the most immediate and far-reaching in their implications for employees. This particular issue appears to have crystallized with the agreement between the union and the employer no later than in 1993 and, it goes without saying, much has occurred in the interim that depended upon that agreement.
5The Board has repeatedly said that the time for filing a complaint is to be measured in months rather than years from the date that the applicants knew or ought to have known about the events in question. This is nowhere more important than when the issue relates to the rights of one set of employees against those of another. Even if, as the applicants maintain, they were misled by the union as to the nature of their rights (an allegation that the union disputes) a delay of this magnitude is extreme. The significant events complained of occurred more than half a decade ago. It is now too late to have them addressed under the provisions of the Act.
6Accordingly, the Board hereby exercises its discretion to decline to inquire into the matter. The application is dismissed.
“Russell Goodfellow”
for the Board