3146-00-U Michelle Ann Rondeau, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union, Responding Party v.The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services), Intervenor.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 21, 2001
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act (the “Act”). The applicant alleges that the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union (OPSEU) has breached its duty of representation to her.
2In a decision dated April 18, 2001, I set out in considerable detail the history of this complaint. I then directed the applicant to reply to aspects of OPSEU’s response. I then went on at paragraphs 9 to 11 to raise concerns about the labour relations purpose to enquiring further into this complaint:
But the Board is concerned about a more fundamental problem that has not been raised by either the union or the employer. The Board is not required to inquire into each and every complaint that is made to it. The Board regularly exercise its discretion and does not inquire into complaints where there is no labour relations purpose in doing so. The Board does not exist to right every wrong, and the Board is particularly reluctant to dredge up and provide a platform for old complaints.
While it is true that one aspect of the complaint is not old, that is, the allegations about the quality of representation provided by OPSEU in the arbitration, a review of the whole complaint makes clear that it is rooted in the March 1993 union meeting in which an alleged defamatory letter was read out. Since that time, the applicant has tried to litigate, in a variety of forums and with a variety of responding parties, what she sees as harassment in the workplace and the employer and the union’s perceived unwillingness to deal with it. Even if I were to focus only on what the union concedes is the “timely” portion of the complaint, that is the representation provided in the arbitration, I am not satisfied that the complaint could be properly contained; the applicant clearly wants to focus on events of 1993 through 1995, which are, in labour relations terms, ancient history.
The time may have come to put an end to these proceedings. The Board may well determine, without a hearing, that there is no labour relations purpose to be served by any further consideration of this case.
3I directed the applicant to address this issue. Finally, I set out that the Board would not award the kind of damages that the applicant was seeking.
4The applicant filed a four-page submission. It does reply to OPSEU’s and the employer’s responses. However, she does not address the Board’s query about the labour relations purpose in enquiring further into this matter, except to say that the injustice the applicant believes she is suffering started in March 1993, and to her mind, has continued ever since. The applicant blames OPSEU because she believes that the defamation of her character commenced at a union meeting, and OPSEU has declined or failed to address it ever since, with ever more serious consequences for the applicant.
5Although the applicant’s submissions do not specifically address the Board’s concerns, the applicant has indirectly confirmed that all of her complaints are rooted in the March 1993 union meeting, and that no purpose would be served by declining to inquire into events that happened before, for example, January 2000 (the year prior to the application), while proceeding to hear about more recent events. In the applicant’s mind, they are all related.
6The Board concludes that this complaint should be dismissed because it is in large part untimely. Moreover, there is no labour relations purpose to be served in inquiring into those elements that are timely because they are not practically severable from the untimely aspects.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board