Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties
2499-01-U Marcella E. Gard, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employee’s Union (OPSEU) formerly (Local 111) current (Local 152), Responding Party.
2501-01-U Lola M. Sidebotham, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party.
2659-01-U Debra Pearce, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union O.P.S.E.U 152 local, Responding Party.
2662-01-U Richard Taylor, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union OPSEU Local 152, Responding Party.
2663-01-U Bill Grasby, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union OPSEU Local 152, Responding Party.
2664-01-U Terry Deactis, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party.
2665-01-U Wendy Hunter, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union O.P.S.E.U. Local 152, Responding Party.
2666-01-U Robyn Thibodeau, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 21, 2001
Decision
These are applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (“the Act”) in which the applicants claims that the responding trade union (“the union”) has violated section 74 of the Act.
A previous decision has been issued in Board files 2499-01-U and 2501-01-U. It reads:
2499-01-U Marcella E. Gard, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employee’s Union (OPSEU) formerly (Local 111) current (Local 152), Responding Party.
2501-01-U Lola M. Sidebotham, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 19, 2001
These are applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (“the Act”) in which the applicants claim the responding trade union (“the union”) has violated section 74 of the Act by failing in its duty to represent them fairly.
The applicants, recreation instructors, allege their re-classification grievances should have been pursued by the union. When employed by the London Psychiatric Hospital in 1997, they filed their grievances, following the filing of similar grievances by recreation instructors at St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. The grievances of the St. Thomas employees were apparently resolved by their receiving retroactive pay. The applicants contend their grievances were abandoned. They regard the different treatment they received as discriminatory and in violation of section 74 of the Act.
The union has asked for an opportunity to investigate the complaint. It needs until Friday, January 25, 2002 to do so.
St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, cited as the employer in the applications, is the successor of both the London Psychiatric Hospital and St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. It contends, in a letter from its counsel dated December 7, 2001, that the circumstances giving rise to the applicants’ grievances arose when the Crown was their employer and that it should be released from the proceedings. It seeks leave of the Board to be removed from the applications.
The applicants and the union may file any submissions they wish to make concerning the request by St. Joseph’s Health Care, London. Those submissions should be received by Friday, January 18, 2002.
The period for the filing of the union’s response and any intervention is extended until Friday, January 25, 2002.
This panel is not seized.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board
The complaints in these files are identical. The same conditions should apply.
Accordingly:
all of these files should be listed together;
the applicants and the union may file submissions concerning the request by St. Joseph’s Health Centre, London by January 18, 2002;
the union’s response and any intervention should be filed by January 25, 2002.
This panel is not seized.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board