Ontario Labour Relations Board
1199-99-U Daniel Dolan, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 416, Responding Party v. City of Toronto, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 10, 2000
This is an application filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) claiming a violation of section 74 of the Act.
The date of the application is July 13,1999. There are a number of documents accompanying the application, two of which are letters from the applicant dated July 7 and July 12, 1999 outlining the specifics of the complaint. In his correspondence of July 7, 1999 the applicant states that he lost employment and wages from May 6, 1997 to September 14, 1998.
The basis of the applicant’s complaint arises out of his allegation that a representative of the responding union (whom the applicant refers to as the rehabilitation officer) did not adequately respond to the applicant’s alleged difficulties in dealing with the employer. Specifically, the applicant states that his complaint was initially about a shift change on April 18, 1997. Subsequently, he was told on May 9, 1997 that he would not be permitted to return to work before obtaining a fitness assessment. He did return to work on September 14, 1998.
The responding union requests that this matter be dismissed on the basis of delay as the delay is significant and therefore prejudicial. It also requests that the application be dismissed on various other preliminary grounds, including failure to disclose a prima facie case and because no valid labour relations purpose would be served by proceeding with it on its merits.
The Board need not inquire into any particular application under section 96 of the Act and I have the discretion to dismiss this application should it be appropriate to do so. This application was brought well after a reasonable time has elapsed from the time the applicant claims that he was treated in violation of the Act. The applicant states that his dispute with the employer began between April 18, 1997 and continued until May 9, 1997. It therefore arose two years prior to the date of his application. Accordingly, the Board will not inquire further into this application on the basis of the delay.
This application is dismissed.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board