3671-00-U Tony Fomenko, Applicant v. CAW Canada, Canadian Auto Workers, Responding Party v. General Motors of Canada Limited, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 2, 2001
[1]. This is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (“the Act”) alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act.
[2]. In a decision dated March 21, 2001, a differently constituted panel of the Board declined the responding party’s (“the union”) request to dismiss this application because it raises the identical issues covered in an earlier application in Board File No. 2564-00-U. The Board observed that the earlier application had been dismissed on a preliminary basis, and that there had been no determination on the merits of that complaint.
[3]. The intervenor filed its response in this matter on March 30, 2001. The intervenor raises the same concern with respect to the previous application, and requests dismissal of this application. I decline to grant the intervenor’s request to dismiss this application, and in so doing, I rely upon the rationale set out in the Board’s March 21, 2001 decision.
[4]. The intervenor also seeks the dismissal of this application on the basis that it fails to disclose a prima facie case of a violation of the Act. Before dealing with that motion, the applicant is directed to reply to paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of Schedule “A” of the intervenor’s response. He must indicate whether or not he agrees with the assertions contained in those paragraphs, and if not, he must provide reasons. To the extent he does not dispute those assertions, he will be deemed to agree with them. The applicant’s written submissions are to be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Board on or before Wednesday, May 16, 2001. The Board will then consider the intervenor’s motion following the deadline for the applicant’s submissions.
[5]. I am seized.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board