Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2031-06-U - Douglas 06-12-20 DEC 20 2006 11:55 FR ONT LRBOUR REL BORRD16 326 0431 TO 94164438618 P.03/04 ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD 2031-06-U lain Douglas, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party v. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Intervenor. BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cuuurllngs, Alternate Chair. DEClSION OF THE BOARD; December 20, 2006 1. This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.l, as amended, ("the Act"). The applicant asserts that OPSEU has not fairly represented him, specifically, has not processed all of his grievances filed in June 2006 to arbitration. 2. OPSEU has asked the Board to dismiss the application on the basis that no primafacie caSe has been made, and that the applicant is abusing the Board's processes in repeatedly filing virtually identical applications after the Board dismisses the previous ones- 3. OPSEU is also seeking a declaration that the applicant may not file further applications alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, without leave of the Board. 4. It appears to be undisputed that lain Douglas was tenninated from his employment in September 2004. In this complaint, he asselts that the union has failed to promptly take to arbitration three grievances he filed on June 9, 2006. Those grievances allege a failure to provide work opportunities offered to others, failure to provide a safe environment throughout his whole employment, and subjecting him to discriminatory practices. 5. Not surprisingly, OPSEU asked in writing, for Mr. Douglas to derail his claims, and provide SOme explanation for the significant delay between the end of his employment and the bringing of the grievances. OPSEU set a deadline of October 27, 2006. According to OPSEU, Mr, Douglas provided no further information, and on November 21, 2006, OPSEU advised Mr Douglas that it would not be proceeding with his grievances. 6- On November 5,2006, Mr. Douglas filed 12 new grievances, which are similar to the June grievances. OPSEU has advised Mr. Douglas that it will not be processing any more grievances until he details them and provides an explanation for the delay. 7. OPSEU points out that the Board has already considered and dismissed two unfair representation complaints made by Mr. Douglas (Board File 3056-05-U and 3069-04~U) in respect of his representation by OPSEU, all relating to the same period of employment and its aftermath. My decision of January 23, 2006 in Board File 3056-05~U dismissed that application because the applicant had not provided the responding parties with the information they needed to respond, although I had specifically directed Mr. Douglas to do so. I directed him to identify which grievances he alleged were treated in a manner that amounted to a violation of the Act. DEe 20 2006 11:56 FR ONT LABOUR REL BOARDI6 326 0431 TO 94164438618 P.04/04 - 2 - 8. The problems in the case before roe now are eerily similar. Mr. Douglas continues to file grievances that are generalized, sweeping and clearly untimely. And when OPSEU legitimately seeks some more information so that it can decide what to do, Mr. Douglas does not respond, and instead fires off another complaint to the Board that does not appear to fairly set out the history of events. 9. Mr. Douglas, both in his grievances and complaints to the Board, seeks to recast events and circumstances that are, in the labour relations scheme, ancient. As set out above, it is undisputed that Mr. Douglas left the workplace in September 2004. It is exceedingly unlikely that he could file a grievance in June or November of 2006 that would be timely in respect of any issue relating to his employmenL But even though a timely grievance is unlikely, OPSEU still gave him an opportunity to explain the delay and provide Some basis to render them timely. Mr. Douglas did not respond. OPSEU is entitled to infonnation and assistance from Mr. Douglas, and in the absence of such infoIDlation and assistance, OPSEU is entitled to decide not to pursue the grievances. 10. In Board File 3056-05-U, Mr. Douglas failed to respond to the Board's direction to provide specific information, but instead, filed more grievances, and then this application. That Course of conduct amounts to an abuse of the Board's processes. We are entitled to expect parties to respond to our directions. When they fail to do so, and we dismiss their applications, applicants cannot reasonably expect to be able to do an "end run" around their failure to comply by filing a new application that raises the same complaint. It is also of significant concern that Mr. Douglas complains about OPSElJ's behaviour when he has been unwilling to assist it by providing the information it needs to properly assess the grievances. Were this to happen on a single occasion, I would not be concerned. But it has become a pattem. II. On the basis of his conduct to date, the Board has no reason to expect that Mr. Douglas will alter his behaviour. I have no reaSOn to expect that he will assist OPSEU to process and investigate any of the grievances he has filed or will tile. Consequently, OPSEU is justifled in not processing his grievances. 12. More important for the Board, I have no reason to expect that Mr. Douglas will stop his abuse of the Board's process in filing spurious complaints against OPSEU, and then refusing to provide the information the Board directs. I order that Mr. Douglas may file no more complaints that OPSEU has breached its duty of fair representation, unless he first seeks and is granted leave by the Board. If new complaints are filed, neither OPSEU nor the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services need to respond unless and until directed by the Board. 13. This application is dismissed on the basis that it is an abuse ofthe Board's processes. "Mary Ellen Cummings" for the Board ** TOTAL PAGE.04 **