HomeMy WebLinkAbout2031-06-U - Douglas 07-02-08
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
2031-06-U
Responding
Intervenor.
lain Douglas, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union,
Party v. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services,
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 8,2007
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 alleges that the Ontario Public
Service Employees Union ("OPSEU") has breached its duty to represent him fairly.
2. In a decision dated December 24, 2006, the Board dismissed this application on the
basis that it was an abuse of the Board's processes, having regard to the applicant's conduct in
this and a previous Board File 3056-05-U. I also determined that Mr. Douglas could file no more
applications asserting that OPSEU breached its duty of fair representation without leave of the
Board.
3. The applicant seeks reconsideration of that decision. It appears that the application
for reconsideration is untimely by one day. However, in the interests of expedition, I am
prepared to relieve against the time limits.
4. Essentially, the applicant af!,,'1les that the information relied on by the Board to dismiss
his application is information that post-dated the application, and should not be considered since
OPSEU asked the Board to dismiss the application on the basis that it did not make out a prima
facie case. The applicant also argued that he should have been given an opportunity to address
the Board about these issues.
5. OPSEU had asked that this application be dismissed because it is an abuse of the
Board's processes. In determining that issue, the Board is not limited to looking only at the
application. It is appropriate to look at the matter in its full context, including the previous
similar application filed by Mr. Douglas. It was also appropriate to consider that after this
application was filed, Mr. Douglas submitted new, untimely, generalized grievances to OPSEU
that were virtually identical to the filed grievances that gave rise to this complaint.
6. In my December 20, 2006 decision I wrote:
10. In Board File 3056-05-U, Mr. Doug]as 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 OPSEU's behaviour when he has been unwilling to assist it by
- 2 ..
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 pattern.
7. It is this pattern of behaviour towards the Board that resulted in my finding that the
application should be dismissed as an abuse of process. Mr. Douglas files untimely grievances,
complains that OPSEU does not address them, then complains to the Board, then does not follow
the Board's directions, and then files more grievances, and the cycle begins anew.
8. Mr. Douglas was given ample opportunity in Board File 3056..05-U to respond to the
Board's simple, clear demands for information so that his application could properly be
determined. He cannot escape his failure to do so by filing essentially the same application again.
9. The request for reconsideration is disrnissed.
"Mary Ellen Cummings"
for the Board