Ontario Labour Relations Board
0703-00-U Teofil Nedelcu, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Responding Party v. Grand River Hospital Corporation, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 11, 2000
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) in which it is alleged that the responding party trade union has violated section 74 of the Act.
2The responding party has filed a response. In its response, among other things, the responding party requests that the Board dismiss the application for delay. By decision dated July 14, 2000 the Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the trade union’s request. Specifically, the Board directed the applicant to advise the Board of the reason for the delay in filing the complaint. The applicant has filed such reasons. Therefore, this decision deals with the delay issue.
3The background facts do not appear to be in dispute. The applicant was an employee of the Grand River Hospital Corporation. He was represented in his employment relations with the Hospital by the responding party trade union.
4On or about September 23, 1998 the applicant’s employment was terminated for alleged improper conduct towards a co-worker and for theft and/or possession of hospital property. The union decide not to proceed to arbitration with the applicant’s grievance. He was advised of the union’s decision on November 9, 1998. The applicant appealed the union’s decision, but that appeal was rejected on or about December 23, 1998 at which time the applicant was informed of the union’s final decision. This application was filed on June 1, 2000, approximately 17 months after the union’s final decision was conveyed to the applicant.
5The explanation for the delay provided by the applicant was that he was waiting for the outcome of criminal charges to be resolved. Those charges arose out of the incidents at the hospital which led to the termination of his employment. The applicant has submitted copies of documents dated December 2, 1999 which appear to be a probation order, suspending sentence with respect to the theft charges led against the applicant. The applicant had pled guilty to the charges of possession of stolen property.
6It is difficult to understand the applicant’s reason for the delay in bringing this application. He was aware that the union refused to take his grievance to arbitration. He ultimately pled guilty in the civil court to the offence for which his employment was terminated. Did he hope that fact would convince the union to take his case, one year after the fact? Such an explanation is absurd.
7The Board has a well-established practice with respect to delay in unfair labour practice proceedings. The Board declines to inquire into a complaint where the application is brought months after the facts giving rise to the application.
8In this case, the delay is excessive. The explanation for that delay does not make sense. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board