HomeMy WebLinkAbout3047-06-U - Beausoleil 07-04-12
ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
3047-06-U Roselle Beausoleil, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(OPSEU), Responding Party v. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services,
Intervenor.
~
ro
n::
_J
z
o
BEFORE: Jack J. Slaughter, Vice-Chair.
Q")
"...
Q")
Q")
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 12, 2007
::J
c:
co
o
I'-
o
o
0J
1. This is a complaint filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 S.O.
1995 c.l as amended (the "Act"), which alleges a violation of section 74 of the Act. More
particularly, Roselle Beausoleil complains that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union ("the
Union") violated the duty of fair representation owed to her in its representation of her in her
employment relations with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services ("the
Employer").
2. By decision dated February 16, 2007, the Board found that it should exercise its
discretion under subsection 96(4) of the Act not to inquire into this complaint and that in any
event the complaint had no reasonable probability or likelihood of success. Accordingly, the
Board dismissed this complaint pursuant to subsection 96(4) of the Act and Rule 39.1 of the
Board's Rules of Procedure.
3. On March 26, 2007, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration of this decision
with the Board.
4. The request for reconsideration is untimely. Rule 18.3 of the Board's Rules of
Procedure provides as follows:
18.3 No request for reconsideration will be considered where it is filed
more than twenty (20) days after the date of the Board's decision, except
with the permission of the Board.
In the absence of adequate reasons to explain the delay, the Board will not extend the time for
filing a reconsideration application: Mohawk Services, [1993] OLRB Rep. April 355.
5. The applicant has provided no explanation as to why the reconsideration application
was not filed in a timely manner. Therefore, the applicant has provided no basis upon which the
Board can exercise its discretion to extend the time limits for the filing of this application. The
Board accordingly finds this application for reconsideration should be dismissed as untimely.
6. In any event, the reconsideration application constitutes an attempt to re-argue
representations that were already before the Board. As such, it does not fall within the limited
scope the Board has established for reconsideration applications, which is to restrict them to new
evidence that was not available previously, representations that there was no prior opportunity to
raise, and significant questions of Board policy: see Imperial Tobacco Products (Ontario Ltd.),
- 2 -
[1974] OLRB Rep. Sept. 609; K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb.
185. This reconsideration application meets none of these criteria.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this application for reconsideration IS dismissed both
because it is untimely and because it is umneritorious.
~
Q)
iY
..J
Z
Q
M
---
M
M
"Jack J. Slaughter"
for the Board
-1
C
(0
o
f'..
o
o
N