0588-01-R Dean Edward King, Applicant v. International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1671, Responding Party v. PPG Canada Inc, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 24, 2001
The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) for a declaration that the responding party no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
This application was filed on May 18, 2001. The employees who are affected by this application are covered by a collective agreement between the responding party and PPG Canada Inc., with an effective date of May 1, 1998, until April 30, 2001. The bargaining unit description in that collective agreement is as follows:
PPG Canada Inc. recognizes the Union as the collective bargaining agency for all hourly employees covered by this Agreement, save and except management personnel, office and sales staff, guards, supervisors, and those above the rank of supervisors.
- The responding party takes the position that:
(1) this application is untimely; and
(2) that in any event this application should be dismissed without a vote pursuant to section 63(16) of the Act.
It is alleged in the application and in the intervenor’s response that the applicant is the only employee in the bargaining unit.
In regards to the respondent’s submission that this matter is untimely the following facts are alleged by the respondent:
(a) that the present agreement ceased to operate on April 30, 2001;
(b) that a conciliation officer was appointed on May 11, 2001 (a copy of the letter making such an appointment dated May 11, 2001 was attached to the response); and
(c) this application was filed on May 18, 2001.
The responding party takes the position that pursuant to section 67(2) of the Act that this application is untimely.
The responding party does point out in its response that originally the applicant had forwarded an earlier application to the responding party on April 30, 2001. The responding party had filed a response to such application on May 2, 2001. By letter dated May 3, 2001, the Registrar had written to the applicant and stated that the application was being returned and that the application had not been processed by the Board as it did not comply with the Board’s Rules of Procedure. In that letter the Registrar stated if the applicant wished to resubmit his application, that he must comply with the Board’s new Rules of Procedure, including Rules 9-10 and 16-18. In addition the Registrar stated “Your application must be filed with the Board within 10 working days from the date of this letter. Failure to file the completed form within the allotted time may result in the termination of this application”.
The responding party submits that the Registrar’s letter “cannot extend the time for filing this termination application beyond May 11, 2001, the “deadline” for filing such application as per the wording of section 67(2) if the Act”. In any event the responding party points out this application was filed after the 10 day working period set out in the Registrar’s letter of May 3, 2001 as such period expired on May 17, 2001 and this application was filed May 18, 2001.
The responding party also raises serious allegations in its submission that this application should be dismissed pursuant to section 63(16) of the Act.
In the circumstances the Board declines to order a vote at this time. On the face of the pleadings, it appears to the Board that this application is untimely. The applicant is given until Friday June 1, 2001 to file submissions as to why this application should not be dismissed as being untimely. If no submissions are received by that date this application will be dismissed. If submissions are received the Board will determine how it should proceed based on the pleadings and such submissions.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board