Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between:
Nigel Shakes, Applicant
v.
Service Employees International Union, Local 204, AFL-CIO, CLC, Responding Party
v.
Humber River Regional Hospital, Intervenor.
Before: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board; November 2, 2001
Decision
1The Board is in receipt of correspondence from the applicant dated October 22, 2001. I will deal with this as a further request for reconsideration. The new submission deals with the applicant’s efforts to determine when a letter he wrote on March 28, 2000 was delivered to the trade union. He has now determined through postal records that the letter in question was delivered on March 29, 2000. The union had pleaded that Mr. Jeff Burch, a union official, did not receive the letter until April 5, 2001.
2This matter was decided on January 18, 2001 after a consultation wherein the Board heard evidence under oath and full submissions from all parties. That decision was subject to a reconsideration request at the request of the applicant. That request was dealt with by decision dated March 28, 2001.
3On April 17, 2001 the applicant provided further submissions to the Board. By letter dated April 26, 2001, the Board solicitor advised the applicant that the matter had been finally disposed of by the Board. He also advised of the availability of the judicial review procedure.
4Even assuming that the evidence presented by the applicant is correct and evidence that could not, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been obtained before the consultation, it does not change the Board’s determination.
5At root, this case was determined on the basis that Mr. Shakes refused to allow the trade union to represent him. He preferred to focus on procedural issues that he felt were of value and in that way undermined the union’s attempts to assist him. This was so in respect of both his discharge grievance and other grievances that preceded it. In those circumstances the trade union cannot be found to have violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
6The letter of March 28, 2000 was not determinative of the issue of the breach of section 74. In terms of the events that were described at the consultation, excluding those related to the letter, the Board indicated that it preferred the evidence of the trade union and the employer witnesses to that of Mr. Shakes. It was on this basis that the facts and issues of the case were assessed and determined. That reasoning is contained in the original decision of January 18, 2001.
7Having regard to the reasons expressed herein, this further request for reconsideration is denied. The Board will not respond to or entertain further submissions in respect of this application. If the applicant wishes to pursue this matter, he is referred to the Board solicitor’s letter dated April 17, 2001.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board