Ontario Labour Relations Board
3595-00-U Eva Kiss, Applicant v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, Responding Party v. The Toronto Transit Commission, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 4, 2001
On February 19, 2001 a complaint was filed alleging that the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 (the “union”) violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
The complaint was filed by Harry Kopyto on behalf of the applicant. The complaint became Board File No. 3400-00-U. By decision dated February 21, 2000, the Board (differently constituted) declined to process the application as it had not been filed in accordance with the Board’s Rules. The matter was terminated without prejudice to the applicant’s right to file a proper application in accordance with the Board’s Rules.
Thus, Board File No. 3400-00-U (despite Mr. Kopyto’s continuing correspondence, likely mistakenly, referring to this file) is and continues to be terminated.
On March 7, 2001 the applicant filed a fresh application dated March 8, 2001. This application is virtually identical to the application in the terminated file just referred to. This application also identifies Mr. Kopyto as the applicant’s representative.
This application appears to have been filed in accordance with the Board’s Rules and now bears the file number set out at the commencement of this decision.
The intervenor Toronto Transit Commission (the “employer”) filed its intervention/response on March 21, 2001.
It asserted, inter alia, that the application is premature and fails to a disclose prima facie case against the union and that it should therefore be dismissed without a consultation.
The union filed its response on March 27, 2001 (after seeking and securing an extension of time to do so).
In that response the union asserts that certain aspects of the claim are premature and that others have been subject to undue delay in their prosecution. It also asserts that the complaint, in all of its aspects, fails to disclose a prima facie case. It, too, asked that the matter be dismissed without a consultation.
In view of those submissions, the Board (differently constituted) issued a decision dated April 6, 2001 in which the applicant was directed to respond to the preliminary arguments raised.
By letter dated April 11, 2001, Brian Mikulinski advised the Board (though not necessarily the other parties), that he had been retained to represent the applicant (in place of Mr. Kopyto). He requested and was granted an extension of time to file the response directed by the Board.
Those submissions were filed by Mr. Mikulinski on May 4, 2001. They were detailed and comprehensive.
On May 24, 2001, Mr. Kopyto advised the Board that he was no longer the applicant’s former representative but rather, that he, and not Mr. Mikulinski, would henceforward by acting on her behalf.
On June 8, 2001, Mr. Kopyto wrote to the Board regarding Board File No. 3400-00-U and suggesting that matter is scheduled for hearing on September 4 and 5, 2001. The Board is perplexed at this suggestion since that file is terminated and no hearing is scheduled. Neither is any hearing scheduled in the instant matter.
In a decision dated June 14, 2001 the Board allowed portions of the preliminary motions and dismissed this application in part. To the extent that the application is proceeding, it is now scheduled for a consultation on August 16, 2001.
By letter dated June 25, 2001, Mr. Kopyto again wrote to the Board regarding Board File No. 3400-00-U. That file is terminated. Mr. Kopyto should expect that any further correspondence in relation to that closed file will be placed in that closed file.
However, assuming that Mr. Kopyto’s June 25, 2001 correspondence is intended to deal with the instant matter, there are different reasons for rejecting its requests.
Without the need to review the contents of that letter, it is sufficient to observe that the chronology of events set out above is completely at odds with the passionate suggestions contained in Mr. Kopyto’s letter.
It may be that Mr. Kopyto was not properly apprised of all of the relevant developments in this matter during the period of time that spanned his departure and eventual return as agent for the applicant.
I see no reason to alter or otherwise reconsider my decision in this matter. Preliminary issues were raised by the responding parties who each asked that the matter be dismissed without a hearing. The applicant was provided with and availed herself (through her then counsel) the opportunity to fully respond to those motions. The Board issued its decision. Nothing in Mr. Kopyto’s largely erroneous submissions persuades me to revisit that decision.
Mr. Kopyto’s request is denied. I decline to reconsider my decision.
Subsequent to the preparation but prior to the release of the preceding portions of this decision, Mr. Kopyto has again written to the Board. He acknowledges that submissions had in fact been made by previous counsel on behalf of the applicant, but maintains his original request to “reopen the matter”. I see no reason to do so.
I note as well that Mr. Kopyto’s most recent correspondence does not appear to have been forwarded to the union. Mr. Kopyto is reminded of his obligations in that regard. Further, he may wish to check his file to ascertain the proper name of employer counsel.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board