Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 0992-00-U Date: July 20, 2000
Between: James Francis Majer, Applicant v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 24, Responding Party.
Before: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) alleging violation of section 74 of the Act.
2The complaint arises out of the responding party’s handling of grievances arising out of allegations of sexual harassment against the applicant. All of the material allegations against the responding party (“the union”) are in respect of events that transpired in 1997.
3The responding party submits that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because, prior to January 1, 1998 the responding party did not have a duty in respect of the applicant under section 74 of the Act. The Waterloo Region District School Board supports this submission.
4The Board agrees that it does not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint.
5Prior to January 1, 1998 the responding party was covered by the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, which did not permit a complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The section 74 duty of fair representation owed by the responding party to teachers only arose upon the coming into force of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, and is not retroactive.
6I agree with Lakeshore Catholic District School Board, [1999] O.L.R.D. No. 824, where the Board found that the union’s section 74 duty was not retroactive prior to January 1, 1998, in respect of a teacher employed by a school board. See also Greater Essex County District School Board, [1999] O.L.R.D. No. 1476 and Ontario English Catholic Teachers Assn. (Metropolitan Toronto Elementary Unit) [1999], O.L.R.D. No. 3130.
7The applicant submits that there has been an ongoing failure to represent the applicant. The Board disagrees. All of the matters in the application arise from events which occurred prior to 1998. There is nothing that has occurred since, other than the applicant’s continuing concern about what he considers to be an unsatisfactory result.
8The application is dismissed.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board