Ontario Labour Relations Board
1686-01-U Cissy Dunkley, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, Responding Party and Trinity College, Intervenor.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 26, 2001
1This is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) in which the applicant alleges that the responding party trade union (the “union”) violated section 74 of the Act. The application was filed with the Board on September 17, 2001.
2The applicant is a member of the union and is employed by Trinity College (the “employer”). The union and the employer are parties to a collective agreement. The applicant filed a grievance on December 5, 2000 in relation to her receiving a five-day suspension by the employer. On April 13, 2001 the union advised the applicant that it would not proceed with her grievance to arbitration. The applicant alleges that the union’s decision to not proceed with her grievance was contrary to section 74 of the Act.
3The union and employer filed detailed responses which include additional facts relating to this matter which were not disclosed by the applicant. The facts contained in the responses, if true, would be relevant in determining whether the union breached section 74 of the Act. Accordingly, the Board directs the applicant to advise the Board, the union and the employer in writing within 15 days of the date of this decision whether it agrees or disagrees with the facts set out in the responses filed by the union and the employer. If the applicant disagrees with the facts contained therein, it is directed to set out in a detailed fashion the nature of the disagreement. Should the applicant fail to respond to the Board’s direction within the prescribed time period, the applicant shall be deemed to have agreed to the facts set out in the responses of the union and the employer.
4The union and the employer seek to have this application dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case of a violation of section 74 of the Act. The union also maintains that the Board should exercise its discretion not to inquire into this application pursuant to section 96(4) of the Act. The union further asserts that the application should be dismissed for delay. The Board directs the applicant to address the arguments raised by the union and the employer. The Board directs the applicant to file its submissions with the Board, the union and the employer within 15 days of this decision.
5This matter may be determined by the Board based on the materials filed without further notice to the parties.
6This panel of the Board is seized.
“John Morgan Lewis”
for the Board