Ontario Labour Relations Board
Anthony Barry, Applicant v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, Responding Party v. Toronto District School Board, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 5, 2000
1This is an application filed by Anthony Barry alleging that his bargaining agent, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (“the Federation”) has failed to represent him in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
2Mr. Barry is a teacher employed by the Toronto District School Board (Toronto School Board”). As such, he is represented by the Federation in collective bargaining with his employer.
3Both the Federation and the Toronto School Board have requested that this application be dismissed because Mr. Barry has failed to make out a prima facie case.
4When determining such a preliminary motion, the Board determines whether the facts as alleged by Mr. Barry, if true, could support a finding that the Federation represented him in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
The Alleged Facts
5Mr. Barry has filed two grievances, one on June 16, 1998 and the second on March 22, 1999. The grievances were scheduled for arbitration before separate tripartite boards of arbitration. One of the grievances was scheduled for one day of hearing on November 17, 1999. At that hearing, the parties agreed to consolidate the two grievances and to schedule the matter for nine further hearing dates commencing in September 2000. The applicant complains of the delay in the hearing of the matter. This Board understands, from the Federation’s response, that the parties thought it more appropriate to schedule a block of dates for the hearing and felt given the issues that many days would be required. Accordingly, there will be a ten-month delay between the first day of hearing and the subsequent days of hearing.
The Decision
6The applicant has not set out a prima facie case. His only substantive complaint is over the scheduling of his grievances. While it may be a long time to wait to have this matter heard, scheduling of dates is not fully in the control of the Federation. It is an unfortunate aspect of the grievance arbitration process that significant delays are not uncommon. There are no facts alleged upon which the Board could find that the Federation has represented the applicant arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith.
7The Board has a discretion under section 96 of the Act as to whether to proceed with an application. In the circumstances of this case, the Board considers it appropriate to dismiss the application without a consultation. This application is therefore hereby dismissed.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board