Wimalaranie Rasie v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75
1067-01-U Wimalaranie Rasie, Applicant v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, Responding Party v. The Sheraton Centre Hotel & Towers, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 28, 2001
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, as amended (the “Act”) alleging that the responding party has violated section 74. In their response and intervention, the responding party and the intervenor ask the Board to exercise its discretion not to proceed with this matter. The responding party and intervenor claim that the Board should not inquire further into this matter as there has been a significant delay between the date in which the alleged violation occurred and the date upon which the application was filed. They also claim that the application does not disclose facts upon which the Board could find that there has been a violation of the Act.
2The applicant does appear to be relying upon her claim that she applied for a full time position in 1997. This application was filed on July 10, 2001 and therefore it does appear that there has been an extreme delay. The application also contains few facts or particulars. The applicant is therefore directed to file submissions responding to the request of the responding party and intervenor that the Board not proceed further with this application. The submissions should also indicate which, if any, of the facts contained in the response or intervention, the applicant disagrees. The applicant’s submissions should be provided to the Board on or before October 12, 2001. The applicant should provide copies of the submissions to the responding party and intervenor.
3After reviewing the submissions the Board will decide whether to inquire further into this application.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board