1984-99-U Easton Christin, Applicant v. OPSEU, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 31, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging that OPSEU (the “union”) breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Act by failing to pursue a grievance regarding investigate the employer’s failure to renew the applicant’s contract in March 1997. This application was filed on October 12, 1999.
2By decision dated December 16, 1999, the Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the request of the responding party and the intervenor that this application be dismissed without a consultation because it does not disclose a prima facie breach of the Act and for delay. The Board has now received and reviewed the applicant’s submissions.
3Having considered the representations of the parties, the Board determines that this application should be dismissed on the ground of delay. The applicant waited over two years after his contract with the employer was not renewed and over two years after he met with a representative of the responding union to discuss his case. At that time, the applicant alleges that the union representative was not interested in his case and made no promise to investigate same.
4The applicant explains his delay in filing this application on the basis that the information provided in support of the application was obtained “…during a two year investigation and could not be submitted to Labour Board without the facts which [he has] outlined”. The Board, however, notes that the alleged facts disclosed by the investigation relate to the employer’s conduct, not the union’s. The facts upon which the applicant bases his complaint that the union was reluctant to pursue his case, and failed to investigate it, were known to him on or about March 29, 1997 when he met with his union representative.
5For all of these reasons, the Board exercises its discretion not to inquire into this application on the ground of delay. This application is accordingly hereby dismissed.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board