1976-01-U Kevin John Ferriman, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW) Local 29, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 29, 2001
This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) which alleges a breach of section 74 of the Act.
While this application was filed as a new application and given a file number, it is in reality a request for reconsideration of a decision of the Board in connection with Board File No. 0024-99-U. That application was dismissed by the Board in a decision dated January 13, 2000 because neither the applicant or anyone acting on the applicant’s behalf appeared for the consultation into the matter which was scheduled for that date.
The applicant’s new application asserts that the matter should be reopened because the applicant was incarcerated at the Metro Toronto Detention Centre at the time of the consultation. The applicant also advises that he was unable to have someone attend on his behalf because his lawyer had quit. The applicant also states that the reason he waited so long to file this new application was that he had to wait for documents which he required on support of his case.
The Board has some sympathy for the applicant’s plight. However, there was no explanation why the applicant did not advise the Board in advance of the January 13, 2000 consultation that he was unable to attend. Had he done so at that time, the Board may well have adjourned the consultation.
There is also no valid explanation why the applicant waited nearly two years to seek to reopen the matter. The applicant surely could have and should have written the Board at a much earlier date to explain why a new consultation should be scheduled. He could have done this in the absence of the court documents which he wanted to rely on.
The Board has often said that labour relations delayed are labour relations denied. The facts which give rise to this application occurred in 1997. There is a substantial delay in requesting the Board to reconsider its January 13, 2000 decision. Despite the applicant’s circumstances, these delays are excessive and are without good explanation.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board