Maurice LeBlanc v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 30
2326-00-U Maurice LeBlanc, Applicant v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 30, Responding Party v. Toronto Transit Commission, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 20, 2001
In a decision dated February 20, 2001, the Board provided the applicant with the opportunity to respond to the submissions of the other parties and, in particular, to certain preliminary issues raised by them.
The applicant has done so in a submission dated March 13, 2001 received by the Board on that date by facsimile transmission.
Those submissions indicate that they were copied to Vince Casuti and the Toronto Transit Commission.
Rule 33 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provide:
- In addition to applications, responses and material covered by other Rules, a party filing any document or correspondence with the Board must at the same time deliver a copy of the document or correspondence to all other parties in the case. Any such document or correspondence filed with the Board must be accompanied by a statement that the party filing it has delivered the document or correspondence to all other parties as required by this Rule. The statement must also include the names and titles of the persons to whom the documents were delivered and precise information regarding the date, time and method of delivery.
The applicant has not complied with the requirements of this Rule insofar as there is no precise information regarding the date, time and method of delivery of its submissions to the other parties. Further, there is no indication at all of the name and title of the person to whom the intervenor employer’s copies were delivered. Finally, it appears that, despite the information filed in the response, the applicant’s representative has opted not to forward copies of the submissions to counsel of record for either of the responding parties.
Despite the apparent non-compliance with the Board’s Rules, we will accept and consider the applicant’s submissions. We do so in large measure because it is clear that those submissions did (at least eventually) find their way to counsel for the responding parties.
The Board’s February 20, 2001 decision provided that the responding parties would have two weeks from the date of receiving the applicant’s submissions to file any further submissions, if desired.
By Facsimile transmission dated March 27, 2001, the Board received further submissions from the responding party trade union. On April 3, 2001 further submissions were delivered to the Board by the intervenor employer.
On April 6, 2001 the applicant faxed the following communication to the Board:
Please note that we have received the Response of the Toronto Transit Commission to our application. The response was received with a cover letter dated April 3, 2001.
Please note that the Response was filed well beyond the time limit for doing so. Accordingly, I object to this material being accepted for filing by the Board. May I please have your ruling in this regard? If it is accepted, please confirm your decision in writing so that I can file a reply to the response.
The applicant’s failure to comply with Rule 33 appears even more blatant in this instance. For there is no indication whatsoever that any copies of this recent correspondence were forwarded to anyone with the remotest connection with either of the responding parties.
In any event, the applicant’s assertion that the employer’s submissions were filed “well beyond the time limit for doing so” is, at best, hyperbolic.
The intervenor employer’s initial response was filed on November 17, 2000 and within the time limits for doing so.
The intervenor employer’s most recent submissions may have been filed marginally beyond the two week limit set by the Board. We say “may” because given the applicant’s failure to comply with Rule 33, we have no precise information as to when the two week limit imposed by the Board would have commenced.
In these circumstances we are content to receive and consider the intervenor employer’s most recent submissions and to the extent it is necessary to do so we hereby extend the time limits for the filing of the submissions accordingly.
Now that the parties have had the opportunity to make their submissions in response to the Board’s last decision, the Board will review the parties’ detailed filings and, in due course, issue a further decision in this matter.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board