3148-00-U Minh Tan Nguyen, Applicant v. United Steelworkers of America Local 9042, Responding Party v. Regal Spring Company, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 18, 2001
This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated October 16, 2001 in which the Board declined to inquire into the applicant’s complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 on the basis that there had been undue delay in filing the application.
The grounds for the request are that the applicant should not be held responsible for delay caused by his unfamiliarity with his right to take legal action against his union. After his termination, the applicant retained legal counsel to file suit for wrongful dismissal and he relied on the advice of professionals to guide his course of action. In addition, he asserts that he has very limited use of the English language and was unaware of his rights. He denies that his delay was prejudicial to the other parties and notes that the union did not claim “prejudice” as a reason for its submission that there had been undue delay. The applicant also asserts that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in that the Board rendered its decision almost six months after requesting reply submissions from the applicant, and one day after the responding party sent a letter to the Board reiterating its request for a decision on its preliminary submissions regarding timeliness.
Decision
The applicant had already apprised the Board of his lack of familiarity with the laws of Canada and of his right to make a complaint against the union. The Board expressly dealt with those submissions in its decision of October 16, 2001, and the applicant is now seeking to reargue them. That is not the purpose of a reconsideration.
The Board may find “inherent prejudice” to the responding party even if the union did not expressly claim such prejudice. The union need not, therefore, itemize precisely how it would be prejudiced by having to proceed. The prejudice is inherent. In any event, the union did submit that it would “unreasonable” to expect it to respond to the complaint after the applicant’s delay. In the Board’s view, the unreasonableness stems from the inherent prejudice toward the union.
The union filed a short letter with the Board on October 15, 2001, reiterating its request that the application be dismissed as untimely. The letter was a simple reminder to the Board that the issue was still outstanding; it added nothing new to the responding party’s pleadings. The Board’s decision was issued on October 16, 2001. In my view, no reasonable apprehension of bias arises from the fact that the Board’s decision is dated October 16, 2001, one day after the union’s letter.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board declines to reconsider its decision of October 16, 2001.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board