Antonio Edmilson Bellan v. Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75
0502-01-U Antonio Edmilson Bellan, Applicant v. Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, Responding Party v. Liverton Hotels International Inc., carrying on business as Metropolitan Hotel, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 10, 2001
This is an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, (“the Act”) by the responding party (the “union”).
In its response the union asserted that the applicant’s allegations – even if true – do not make out a violation of the Act and submitted that the application ought to be dismissed for failure to plead a prima facie case.
The intervenor (the “employer”) also filed a response. And although it did not explicitly claim that the application failed to disclose a prima facie case and should be dismissed on that basis, it asserted that the relief request by the applicant was inappropriate.
In view of the union’s request, the Board issued a decision dated June 14, 2001, in which it directed the applicant to file submissions in response, inter alia, to the union’s request that the matter be dismissed.
The responding parties were neither invited nor required to file any further submissions.
The applicant filed his submissions on July 3, 2001. Although directed to deliver those submissions to the other parties (and despite an indication in his materials of having done so), it appears the applicant may not have done so. (That deficiency, if it was one, has now been remedied by the Registrar).
In a decision dated July 26, 2001, I directed that the matter be listed for consultation.
By letter dated August 3, 2001, the intervenor seeks to have the Board reconsider its decision dated June 14, 2001. It also seeks an opportunity to review the applicant’s submissions and to submit a response.
The Board sees no reason to reconsider its decision of June 14, 2001 (not merely because the request is untimely) or, for that matter, its decision of July 26, 2001.
It is unfortunate that the responding parties may not have been provided with copies of the applicant’s most recent submissions in a timely fashion.
However, it must be recalled that the Board was dealing with a request to dismiss an application for failing to disclose a prima facie case. In making such determinations, the Board generally confines its view to the pleadings and allegations as framed by the applicant. It was for that reason that the Board neither sought nor required any further submissions from the responding parties.
The employer’s request for reconsideration is rejected.
Nothing herein, however, precludes either of the responding parties from filing further materials should they be of the view that the applicant’s recent filings raise some new issues or otherwise warrant a further response.
Subject to that proviso, the matter will, however, proceed to a consultation.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board