Ontario Labour Relations Board
3845-99-ES Marcello Paredes, Applicant v. Carravetta Fruit Market, and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 43002043
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 25, 2000
1This is an employee appeal from an Officer’s decision not to issue an Order to Pay. The Officer’s letter is dated December 7, 1999. At the bottom, the letter says:
An application for review must be made within 45 days of the date of the order or the date of the letter informing the employee of the decision. The Ontario Labour Relations Board may extend the time for applying for a review if it considers it appropriate to do so.
2The applicant filed his appeal on March 23, 2000, well outside the 45 day appeal period. The Board, by letter dated March 31, 2000, advised the applicant that his appeal was untimely, and directed him to make submissions within 10 days if he wished to seek an extension.
3On April 19, 2000, again, outside the 10 day period directed, the applicant wrote to the Board. He indicated that he knew about the 45 day time limit, and immediately sent his application for review to an office of the Ministry of Labour, not the Board. He claims that the office of the Ministry of Labour did not advise him until the second last week in February that the documents were sent to the wrong place. When he got the application form, the applicant writes, he sent the materials to the Board within 45 days.
4I was initially surprised at the applicant’s allegation that the Ministry of Labour had delayed in advising him that he had sent his application for review to the wrong place; that has not been the general experience. When I reviewed the file further, I discovered the applicant had provided a copy of the letter he received from the Ministry, and it contradicts the applicant. First, the letter indicates he wrote to them December 29, 1999 which is certainly not “immediately” after he was advised of the Officer’s decision. Second, the letter to the applicant is dated January 12, 2000, well before the “second last week” in February. Having regard to the totality of the information provided by the applicant, I am not satisfied that he is being truthful in his explanation of the events that caused him to file a late appeal.
5Consequently, I do not consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion and extend the time for filing the appeal.
DISPOSITION
6For the reasons set out above, this application is terminated because it is untimely.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board