Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. St. Joseph’s Hospital
File No.: 2377-00-R Date: December 15, 2000
Applicant: Ontario Public Service Employees Union Responding Party: St. Joseph’s Hospital Intervenors: Ontario Nurses’ Association; Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 786; Security & Service Workers Union Local 503 affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada.
Before: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application made pursuant to section 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995 ch.1, as amended (“the Act’) seeking reconsideration of the Board’s decision of November 17, 2000. At the moment, this application stands adjourned sine die. However, the intervenor Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 786, has asked the Board to reconsider its decision that the application was filed in a timely manner.
2The argument is not a frivolous one, and the Board’s original decision was made without the benefit of argument, either written or oral. Accordingly, it is appropriate to leave this matter to be determined by the panel hearing the application if and when it is brought on for hearing.
3It may be of some assistance to the parties to understand the basis on which the decision was taken. When the Act refers to “days” this means calendar days: see Sarnia Construction Association, [1999] OLRB Rep. Sept. 884. The Board also draws to the parties’ attention the provisions of section 28(i) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990 ch. I.11, which may not apply to the Board with respect to Monday, November 13, 2000. Although the application appears to have been sent by facsimile copier to the responding party and all intervenors on November 13, 2000, it appears to have been delivered to the Board by hand at 11:07 on November 14, 2000.
4This application is adjourned sine die. Accordingly it is sufficient at this point to vary the last sentence of paragraph 5 of the November 17, 2000 decision to read: “This application may or may not be timely. The issue of timeliness may be addressed when this matter comes on for hearing before a panel of the Board.”
“David A. McKee”
for the Board