Ontario Labour Relations Board
3882-99-U William Kenneth Mayer, Applicant v. C.A.W. Local 112, Brian Murphy and Merv Grey, Responding Parties; Bombardier Aerospace, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 27, 2000
1In its intervention, counsel for the intervenor requests that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing or consultation pursuant to Rule 46 of the Board’s Rules of Procedures.
Rule 46 provides as follows:
- Where the Board considers that an application does not make out a case for the orders or remedies requested, even if all of the facts stated in the application are assumed to be true, the Board may dismiss the application without a hearing or consultation. In its decision, the Board will set out its reasons.
2Counsel for the intervenor submits that the applicant’s pleadings reveal that the responding party (“the union”) diligently represented the applicant in support of the many grievances he filed over the term of his employment. Counsel goes on to allege that the applicant’s dismissal was taken by the union to arbitration where the union succeeded in persuading the arbitrator that the applicant had not been terminated for just cause. Counsel filed a copy of the arbitrator’s award dated July 29, 1999 in favour of the union and the applicant, and his further award dated September 10, 1999 in which, convinced that the employment relationship was irrevocably harmed, he ordered substantial damages in lieu of reinstatement of the applicant.
3The applicant’s complaint purports to cover events over the last 10 years, culminating in his termination on October 28, 1998 and ensuing arbitration. If the intervenor’s allegations concerning the arbitration of the applicant’s dismissal are true, it would appear that the applicant has failed to make out a case of a violation of section 74 in respect of the union’s representation of him concerning his termination and the subsequent processing of his grievance to arbitration. Moreoever, with respect to the other conduct complained of, the applicant has not explained what appears to be excessive delay in having filed this application in respect of those matters, other than a brief explanation regarding his lack of legal training.
4As the Board observed in John Craven, [1991] OLRB Rep. Mar. 420, while some latitude must be given to parties unaware of their statutory rights, in the absence of exceptional circumstances or overriding public policy considerations, excusable delay should be measured in months rather than years.
5The applicant is directed to respond to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the intervenor’s pleadings in Schedule A of its intervention, and to indicate whether he agrees or disagrees with every allegation contained therein. To the extent he disagrees with any allegation, he is to provide his reasons. The applicant is also directed to provide submissions concerning the issue of delay in filing this application in respect of the union’s alleged conduct prior to the applicant’s termination. The applicant must provide his response and submissions as herein directed to the Board, the intervenor and the union, on or before May 5, 2000.
6The failure of the applicant to comply with any of the Board’s directions in this decision may result in the immediate dismissal of the application without a hearing or consultation.
7Upon receipt of the applicant’s submissions, the Board will consider the issue of delay, and will consider further the intervenor’s submissions concerning dismissal of the application pursuant to Rule 46.
8I am seized to deal with the applicant’s submissions.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board