Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties
2768-97-U Sheila Parchment, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1106, Responding Party v. Queensway General Hospital, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 31, 2000
Decision
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, (the "Act"). The applicant alleges that Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1106 ("the Union") has breached section 74 of the Act.
2This matter was heard on September 9, 1998. The Vice-Chair who heard the matter then left the Board.
3In my administrative capacity as Alternate Chair, I advised the parties by letter dated August 17, 2000 that the Vice-Chair has failed to produce a decision, and recently returned the file to the Board. Consequently, the Board has assigned a Labour Relations Officer to endeavour to effect a settlement, and the Board has scheduled the matter to be reheard in a consultation on September 28, 2000.
4Counsel for the employer wrote to the Board on August 24, 2000 renewing its request that this matter be dismissed for failure to make out a prima facie case. Counsel noted that it had previously made such a request, which was denied. However counsel notes that in the intervening years, the applicant's workplace has significantly changed and the applicant is now drawing a pension, suggesting that she may be retired. Counsel points to the delay her client has faced, and submits that in light of these changes, and the cost to her client of a further proceeding, the Board should dismiss the application for failure to make out a prima case.
5The Board appreciates the employer (and no doubt the other parties') frustration with the course this proceeding has taken. All of the changes that have occurred since the matter was heard are factors which may help the parties to find a way to settle this dispute. However, they are not matters that go to whether or not the applicant has made out a prima facie case. Since the Board previously determined that the applicant had made out a prima facie case, I decline to reconsider the matter.
6Counsel also indicated that she is unavailable on the September 28, 2000 date scheduled for the consultation. Counsel wrote that she expected the Board to be as accommodating as possible in scheduling, given the unfortunate circumstances. I agree.
But counsel should first seek the consent of the other parties, as is our usual practice. In the event counsel is unable to secure consent, she can again renew her request to the Board.
"Mary Ellen Cummings"
for the Board