Ontario Labour Relations Board
3065-99-U Kenneth E. Pitt, Applicant v. Power Workers’ Union CUPE Local 1000 – C.L.C., Responding Party v. Ontario Hydro Services Company Inc. Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 1, 2000
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging violation of section 74. The applicant alleges that the responding party failed to process grievances on his behalf. One grievance matter concerns the applicant’s claim for salary allegedly owed to him because he was performing relief duties as an “MP4” from January 31, 1994 to May 31,1999. The responding party asserts that the applicant brought this matter to its attention too late to file a grievance within the 30 day time limit in the collective agreement.
2The second matter that the applicant wants to grieve is the decision of the intervenor not to select the applicant for an “MP4” position. This position is outside the bargaining unit represented by the responding party. The responding party asserts that the relevant collective agreement expressly prevents it from filing a grievance about the failure to select the applicant to an MP4 position.
3The intervenor agrees with these submissions of the responding party.
4The submissions by the responding party are clearly of fundamental importance to this application. The responding party submits that the application should be dismissed without a hearing as not disclosing a prima facie case.
5Before deciding whether the application should be dismissed as not disclosing a prima facie case, the Board wants to hear from the applicant with respect to the matters raised by the responding party and referred to above (and, of course, any other relevant matter). The Board directs the applicant to file with the Board a reply by no later than March 10, 2000. The reply shall respond to the issues raised by the responding party as outlined above. The applicant shall, at the same time and within the same period, provide the intervenor and responding party with a copy of his reply. (The Board notes that on February 8, 2000, it received a reply from the applicant which responds to the intervenor’s submission but not to the matters raised by the responding party and addressed in this decision.)
6The applicant should be aware that the Board has the discretion to dismiss a complaint under section 74 as not disclosing a prima facie case on the basis of the parties’ written submissions and without holding a consultation or hearing.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board