Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 2798-99-U Date: May 26, 2000
Between: Joseph Giordano, Applicant v. Canadian Auto Workers Local 27 (CAW) Canada, Responding Party v. General Motors of Canada Limited, Intervenor.
Before: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1The Board, by decision in this matter dated May 10, 2000 dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration of the Board's earlier decision in this matter dated February 29, 2000 dismissing this application on the grounds that it was appropriate, in the exercise of the Board's discretion under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1 (the "Act") to refuse to inquire into the application.
2The applicant, by letter to the Registrar dated May 24, 2000, sets out a series of facts supported by documents, which includes the following statement:
December 15, 1999. The Board made the decision to accept my claim for the second time, with the Registrar seal of approval. I will not accept a dismissal until the conditions specified in the settlement are complied with, document attached.
Attached to the applicant's letter was a confirmation of filing of the application signed by the Registrar dated December 15, 1999 which stated, among other things, that the Board had authorized Paul Simon, Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the application and to endeavour to effect a settlement. That document also stated that the Officer was to report the status of his settlement efforts to the Registrar before March 24, 2000, that the Officer would be contacting the parties before that date to arrange a time to meet and discuss the application and that the parties were expected to meet with the Officer before that date.
3One of the grounds the applicant relied on in his request for reconsideration was that the Board's decision of February 29, 2000 did not allow the settlement efforts of the Officer to take place. The Board's decision of May 10, 2000 dealt with that submission at paragraph 6 in which the Board wrote:
The applicant also relies on the Board's communication of December 15, 1999 in which the applicant was advised that the Board had appointed a Labour Relations Officer to endeavour to effect a settlement. The applicant contends that Board's February 29, 2000 decision negated the settlement efforts of the Officer. The applicant requests in his reconsideration application that the Officer undertake the settlement efforts that should have taken place. The Board's decision found that the applicant's case ought to be dismissed because the Board decided to refuse to inquire into the application. Thus, there was no proper basis for the Board to use its limited resources to attempt to effect a settlement of this matter. The Board determined that the application would not proceed further based only on a review of the applicant's material. In those circumstances, a settlement meeting need not have been convened. In my opinion, the Board's December 15, 1999 communication with the applicant did not determine that there was some merit to the application. Rather, a Labour Relations Officer was appointed and the affected parties were advised of the application. The Board's decision dismissing the application obviated the need to have the Officer undertake any other settlement efforts as the responding party and the intervenor both sought the dismissal of the application and the Board, after only considering the applicant's material, determined that the application would not proceed further. The applicant has not provided any basis for concluding that the decision to dismiss the application before the Officer had conducted a settlement meeting was wrong.
The applicant's letter of May 24, 2000 does not address the Board's reasons for deciding that the Registrar's communication of December 15, 1999 did not entitle the applicant to have a Labour Relations Officer meet with the parties.
4The applicant states that he will not accept the dismissal of his application. Whether the applicant does or does not accept what the Board has done is up to him. The Act provides in section 114 (1) that:
The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any matter before it, and the action or decision of the Board thereon is final and conclusive for all purposes....
The Board has made the decision to exercise its discretion to refuse to inquire into this application. That decision is, according to section 114 (1) of the Act, "final and conclusive for all purposes". Therefore, this application is and remains dismissed.
"Harry Freedman"
for the Board