Istarlin Mohamed v. Teamsters Canada, Local 847
0379-99-U Istarlin Mohamed, Applicant v. Teamsters Canada, Local 847, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: H. Kopyto for the applicant; Michael McCreary and Fred Wood for Teamsters Canada, Local 847.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 1, 2000
Decision
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging violation of section 74.
2A consultation was held on January 27, 2000 at which time the Board made the following determinations and orders:
3The responding party made a preliminary submission that the application should be dismissed because of undue delay. The Board made an oral ruling that the delay in filing the application from mid-August, 1998 to May 5, 1999 was, in all the circumstances, not so long that the Board should exercise its discretion to dismiss the application for undue delay.
4The application is adjourned. The consultation will resume on Tuesday, June 6, 2000 at the Board’s premises in Toronto, at 505 University Ave., 2nd Floor, commencing at 9:30 a.m. local time. On June 6, 2000 the parties may call witnesses to give evidence that may be relevant to the complaint under section 74.
5The applicant alleges that the history of “harassment” of the applicant by the applicant’s former employer should have been a factor in the responding party’s handling of the applicant’s discharge grievance. The responding party submits that these allegations are not pleaded in sufficient detail. The Board agrees that the allegations are not sufficiently particularized to enable the responding party to respond. The applicant is directed to file a precise statement of the allegations in this regard, along with a statement of the material facts said to support the allegations. These shall be filed by February 29, 2000. The responding party (and intervenor if any) shall file their response by March 31, 2000.
6The applicant purported to file additional documents on January 25, 2000, two days before the date of the consultation. The responding party objects that this is a violation of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. In view of the continuation of this matter, the responding party now has an opportunity to study the documents and for this reason the Board grants the applicant leave to file the documents in question.
7Goodwill Toronto, the applicant’s former employer, is directed to file with the Board its intervention, if any, by no later than twelve days from January 27, 2000, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and days on which the Board is closed. The applicant and responding party have until March 31, 2000 to file a response to the intervention.
8This panel of the Board remains seized with this matter.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board