Ontario Labour Relations Board
0432-01-U Jean Jordan, Applicant v. Ontario Nurses’ Association, Responding Party v. Villa Colombo Homes for the Aged Inc., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 12, 2001
This is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, R.S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (“the Act”) alleging that the responding union (“the union”) has violated section 74 of the Act. The union and the intervenor (“the employer”) contend the application does not disclose a prima facie case. They ask that it be dismissed without a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 46. This decision addresses that request.
The applicant claims the union has violated the provisions of section 74 of the Act by declining to pursue her grievance at arbitration.
From the pleadings it appears the applicant lost her employment on February 8, 1999. Grievances were filed by the union. Minutes of Settlement were concluded on April 6, 1999. Pursuant thereto the applicant resigned her employment. She received amounts of money as part of the settlement. The employer would provide a letter of recommendation. Inquiries by prospective employers of the applicant were to be met with the information in the letter.
Some time later the applicant informed the union that she could not find fresh employment. She believed the cause was the employer giving her bad references. She claimed the employer was not complying with its obligation to refer only to the letter of recommendation when inquiries came from prospective employers.
On January 27, 2000 the union filed a grievance claiming the employer had breached the Minutes of Settlement. The employer denied the grievance. It was referred to arbitration. The arbitration was due to be heard on February 28, 2001.
Not long after the filing of the grievance it seems that the applicant obtained employment.
The union sets out in detail the steps it took to prepare for the arbitration hearing (see Appendix “C” to its response). The applicant has not addressed the matters contained in Appendix “C”.
In order for the Board to make a proper assessment of whether the application should be permitted to proceed, the Board requires the applicant to reply to the following matters:
Is it correct that the applicant obtained employment in about February 2000?
If not, when did the applicant obtain employment?
If the applicant obtained employment, what is the basis of the applicant’s grievance against the employer?
Are the allegations in paragraphs 18 to 28 of Appendix “C” of the union’s response accurate? The applicant is directed to reply to each allegation made by the union. If the applicant says that any allegation is not accurate, she must provide details as to why that is so.
The applicant’s detailed reply must be received by Friday, June 29, 2001. Any allegation in Appendix “C” which is not denied, and explained, will be deemed to be admitted.
I remain seized to deal with the Rule 46 request.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board