0478-00-U Eugena Soso, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1590 and Providence Centre, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 1, 2000
In a decision dated June, 19, 2000, I dismissed this application largely because of its defective nature.
The applicant has now filed a request that I reconsider that decision. It claims that a document dated May 4, 2000 and headed “Factual Background to Complaint by Eugena Soso” was filed together with the application. No such document was in the file before me. Had it been, I certainly would not have issued a decision such as the one issued on June 19, 2000.
I am unable to determine whether the absence of that document from the file was due to the inadvertence of the applicant or whether the Board’s own clerks may be responsible.
The applicant should understand, however, that the communications with a Labour Relations Officer are not communications with the Board. Indeed, in order to preserve the officer’s ability to facilitate settlements most communications between the parties and the officer are not disclosed to the Board. Should a party wish for documents to be considered by the Board, they are to be filed, in the normal course, with the Registrar.
In any event, I am prepared to grant applicant counsel the benefit of the doubt and to therefore conclude that not all of the relevant information was before me at the time my decision was made. I am therefore prepared to reconsider it. My decision dated June 19, 2000 is hereby revoked.
However, having reviewed all of the materials in this case I will now consider whether to advance this matter to a consultation. Before so doing, however, I will grant the applicant a further opportunity to respond to union’s filings in this matter.
In particular, and given that some of the events complained of are some two years old, the applicant may wish to take the opportunity to explain the delay in bringing this application.
Further, the applicant is directed to indicate whether it disputes any of the facts set out in Schedule “A” of the union’s response. In that regard, the applicant may wish to confirm whether it is of the view that the October 1998 settlement required the employer (to use the words of paragraph 3 on page 12 of the applicant’s “Factual Background”) “to give her the first available job”.
Finally, the applicant is free to respond to any other portion of the union’s response.
The submissions directed herein are to be filed with the Board and delivered to the other parties not later than August 31, 2000. I will review the matter again at that time.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board