Sign in Subscribe
Social services

Ontario Labour Relations Board Dismisses Complaint Against Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The Ontario Labour Relations Board has dismissed a complaint filed by Savita Sharma against the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) and the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Sharma alleged that OPSEU had acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith in its representation of employees, specifically in relation to her settlement with the Employer in 2016 and her allegation of constructive dismissal due to a lack of accommodation from 2015 to 2021. The Board dismissed the complaint citing significant delay in filing the application, with the first allegation occurring eight years prior to the filing of the application and the second allegation three years prior. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the Board exercised its discretion in accordance with subsection 96(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, dismissing the application without inquiring further into the allegations.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed a complaint filed by Savita Sharma against the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) and the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
  • The complaint alleged that OPSEU had acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith in its representation of employees, specifically in relation to Sharma's settlement with the Employer in 2016 and her allegation of constructive dismissal due to a lack of accommodation from 2015 to 2021.
  • The Board cited significant delay in filing the application as the reason for dismissing the complaint, with the first allegation occurring eight years prior to the filing of the application and the second allegation three years prior.
  • The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
  • The Board exercised its discretion in accordance with subsection 96(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, dismissing the application without inquiring further into the allegations.
  • Punta Madhira is a Toronto-based writer currently pursuing her MIA.
  • Savita Sharma's previous complaints against OPSEU, filed in 2022, are unrelated to this case.
  • The onus lies with the applicant to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in raising this complaint, as outlined in previous Board cases.

Statistics:

  • The delay in filing the application was significant, with the first allegation occurring eight years prior to the filing of the application and the second allegation three years prior.
  • The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
  • The Board's decision is based on the Labour Relations Act, 1995, subsection 96(4), which grants the Board discretion to exercise in such a manner.
  • According to the Board's case law, prejudice is presumed for the responding party where delay is more than one year.
  • The applicant's previous section 74 complaint in 2022, concerning her 2021 resignation from her employment with the Employer, is unrelated to this case.

Sources:

  • OLRB Case No: 1279-24-U Savita Sharma, Applicant v Ontario Public Service Employees Union/Syndicat des employes de la fonction publique de l'Ontario OPSEU/SEFPO, Responding Party v Ministry of the Solicitor General, Intervenor
  • The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, 1982 CanLII 864 (ON LRB)
  • Angela Indershan v Service Employees International Union, 2024 CanLII 2068 (ON LRB)
  • Savita Sharma v Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), 2023 CanLII 17249 (ON LRB)
  • Savita Sharma v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) 2023 CanLII 26738 (ON LRB) (request for reconsideration denied)

Read more