Eva Kiss v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113
3595-00-U Eva Kiss, Applicant v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, Responding Party v. Toronto Transit Commission, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: H. Kopyto and Eva Kiss for the applicant; Heather Alden and Paul McLaughlin for the responding party; Dolores M. Barbini and Dan Haffey for the intervenor.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 20, 2001
Decision
1This is a complaint brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) that the union has breached section 74 of the Act.
2Without detailing the pleadings in full, as was outlined in previous decision, the applicant was injured while performing work on the job.
3Efforts were made through the Workers Safety Insurance Board procedures to find the applicant suitable work given her medical restrictions.
4No solution was found. The applicant is strongly of the view that the union should have filed a grievance on her behalf and proceeded to arbitration if necessary.
5At the consultation hearing the union agreed to file a grievance on behalf of Ms. Eva Kiss in relation to whether there are positions available that Ms. Eva Kiss is capable of performing given her medical restrictions, and whether the employer has fulfilled its obligations to accommodate Ms. Eva Kiss in a position that she is capable of performing given her medical restrictions.
6The employer agreed that it would not raise any timeliness objection in relation to such grievance.
7Both the union and the employer agree that such grievance will be deemed to have been filed April 2, 2001.
8In the interest of sound industrial relations policy, and given the undertakings of the union and the employer, and given the discretion of the Board under section 96 and section 99 of the Act, the Board orders that the union file a grievance immediately on behalf of Ms. Eva Kiss as set out above and relies upon the undertakings of the union and the employer in this regard.
9The applicant expressed concern with having continued representation by union representatives. The Board is not prepared at this time to order that Ms. Kiss be allowed to hire her own representative. In the circumstances, however, the Board will adjourn this matter for a period not exceeding one year. Unless within that time the applicant requests that the Board proceed with this matter, it will be deemed terminated without any further notice to the parties. If the applicant wishes to proceed with this matter, it should notify the Registrar and the other parties. At that time, the applicant should file any additional material facts and representations upon which the applicant wishes to rely.
10This panel will remain seized.
11This ruling confirms the oral ruling rendered to the parties on August 16, 2001.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board