Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 2220-00-U Date: December 7, 2000
Between: Brian Michael Snider, Applicant v. Canadian Auto Workers, Canada, and General Motors of Canada Limited, Responding Parties.
Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act') alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act.
2The named responding party, General Motors of Canada (“GM”) requests that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing because, in its opinion, the application fails to make out a prima facie case of a violation of section 74. GM also requests that the Board dismiss the application because of excessive delay.
3The alleged facts which underline this application, filed on October 27, 2000, commenced in 1993, when the applicant filed a grievance concerning overtime pursuant to the collective agreement between GM and the other named responding party (“the union”). The grievance was referred to arbitration but never adjudicated. The applicant admits that as early as July 2, 1998, the union informed him that it intended to withdraw his grievance. The applicant and the union agree that the union advised the applicant of the withdrawal in December 1999. GM claims that the grievance was withdrawn on May 7, 1999, although it does not allege that the applicant was made aware of the withdrawal at the time.
4The Board is concerned that there appears to have been a lengthy delay in the filing of this application. That delay is at least nine months, and arguably more than two years. Either way, the delay is excessive, and the applicant owes an explanation. There must be compelling reasons for the Board to excuse delay of this kind.
5The applicant is directed to provide the Board and the other parties in this matter with written submissions concerning the reasons for the lengthy delay in bringing this application. He must do so on or before December 18, 2000, failing which the application will be dismissed immediately. After considering the applicant’s explanation, the Board may dismiss the application without a hearing. However, if the Board is satisfied that the reasons offered by the applicant are sufficient, and that there is no further reason to call upon the other parties for reply, the Board will deal with GM’s prima facie motion, and direct the applicant to respond to that motion.
6I am seized to deal with the submissions of the applicant as herein directed.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board