Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 2221-00-U Date: December 28, 2000
Rick Ward, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW Canada); CAW Local 1973, Responding Parties v. General Motors of Canada Limited, Intervenor.
Before: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding parties: "National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW Canada); CAW Local 1973".
2In a decision dated November 14, 2000, I indicated that the Board would not consider this application any further unless and until the applicant filed a revised application which included a summary of all of the relevant facts, a description of the specific acts which are said to be contrary to the Act and an indication of the nature of the relief being sought.
3It was necessary to do so because, as indicated in the earlier decision, the narrative description of events included in the application was so incoherent that the Board was unable to discern the nature of the facts alleged.
4The applicant has now filed further materials. Unfortunately, while they have added to the volume of the Board's file, they have provided no further clarity.
5The applicant has yet to file a brief summary of the facts alleged or any indication of the nature of the claimed breach of the Act.
6Apart from further documents which serve little to clarify these matters, the applicant has filed further written submissions. Unfortunately, they appear to be structured as a response to the union's response. The Board still has little in the way of a succinct summary to indicate the nature of the complaint.
7Two things do emerge with some clarity, however, from the those submissions.
8First, to the extent one can interpret the nature of the claim, it appears to have its principal origins with events that are up to 19 years old.
9Second, to the extent that any potential remedy has been identified, the applicant asks that the Board "fine General Motor Transmission and the CAW the maximum amount". Of course, the Board has no authority to levy fines (least of all against an employer) in the context of an application brought under section 74.
10In view of the Board's inability to discern the nature of the complaint; the applicant's failure, after being provided with the opportunity to do so, to repair that deficiency; the appearance of extreme and undue delay in relation to events of considerable vintage; and the fact that the relief being sought is not within the range of the Board's remedial arsenal, I see no reason to consider this matter any further.
11The application is dismissed.
"Bram Herlich"
for the Board