Manuel Puche v. Bo Ramjit

[1990] OLRB Rep. October 1090

0107-90-OH Manuel Puche, Complainant v. Bo Ramjit, Respondent

BEFORE: Louisa M. Davie, Vice-Chair, and Board Members M. Rozenberg and K. Davies.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 30, 1990

1. The Board has received the following letter dated September 11, 1990 from the respondent:

It is most important that the decision handed down August 30-1990 be appealed.

I strongly disagree with their decision and failure to consider the real reason for Manuel Puche dismissal.

It is also of [sic] my opinion that Louisa M. Davie went beyond her Post and acted as counsel on many occasions for the complaiiiant, [M. Puche] during the trial.

It is of my greatest intrest [sic] that this case be heard before an Appeal Board.

2. Mr. Puche responded to this request by letter dated October 8, 1990 as follows:

Further to your letter dated October 1, 1990, in regards to Mr. Ramjit dissaproval [sic] of the decision rendered by the Board, I am writing to you to object to further pursuing this matter before an Appeal Board, as pretended by Mr. Ramjit.

Mr. Ramjit's allegations are not sustained. The decision rendered by the Board was based on a very impartial and fair manner, on what was declared by both parties during the hearings. Therefore, I see no reasons to begin new hearings. I only wish to settle this matter once and for all, as I have a job and my family to look after, and have no time to waste with Mr. Ramjit.

3. Under section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act the Board has the discretion to recon­sider any decision it has made.

4. The basis upon which the Board normally exercises this discretion is set out in its juris­ prudence and, in particular in Practice Note No. 17 of the Board's Rules of Procedure (a copy of which is appended to this decision for the benefit of the parties).

5. In his request for reconsideration the respondent does not indicate an intent to adduce new evidence which was not previously available to him by the exercise of due diligence. Indeed there is no suggestion that the respondent has any additional evidence which, if proved, could affect the outcome of the case. The respondent does not request reconsideration because he has new evidence or wishes to make representations which he did not have a previous opportunity to raise. The respondent's request for reconsideration on this basis is therefore dismissed.

6. In respect of the respondent's assertion that the Vice-Chair acted as counsel to the com­plainant the Board notes paragraph two of its decision dated August 29, 1990:

2. The Board notes that the complainant and the respondent appeared without legal counsel. The respondent acted on his own behalf although he did have an advisor present on the first day of the hearing. The Board commented that there was no requirement that persons appearing before the Board have legal counsel. The Board not infrequently conducts hearings where one or more parties are unrepresented. The Board noted however that Board hearings are legal pro­ceedings and persons appearing on their own behalf do bear any risk involved with appearing on their own behalf. We indicated that the Board's function is to adjudicate. It would be inconsis­tent with our role as adjudicators to become an advocate for, or advisor to, any party to the pro­ceeding because that party is unrepresented by counsel. In this instance however, the Board did explain the process to be followed to the complainant and the respondent both initially and throughout the proceeding. We also indicated, at various stages of the proceedings, that the issue before the Board was whether the respondent had discharged Mr. Puche because of Mr. Puche's attempt to exercise rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

7. It is the normal or usual practice of the Board to conduct itself in this manner where one or more parties appearing before it are unrepresented by legal counsel. This was the practice followed by this panel of the Board throughout the hearing without complaint from either party to the proceeding. We note in particular that during the course of the hearing the respondent raised no objections to the manner in which the hearing was conducted. The respondent's request for reconsideration on this basis is therefore also dismissed.

8. We note also that by letter dated September 19, 1990 Mr. Puche wrote to the Board as follows:

Further to the copy of the Board's Decision, of file 0107-90-OH, dated August 30th, 1990, I would like to bring to your attention that, to this date, I have not received any notice of any kind pertaining to the amount of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500.00) from Mr. Bo Ramjit.

It is stated in the mentioned copy that "this amount is to be paid to Mr. Puche by Mr. Ramjit together with interest calculated in accordance with the Board's Practice Note No. 13. within 14 days of receipt of this decision".

Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if you could follow up with Mr. Ramjit regarding this overdue amount.

9. Section 24(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) states:

(3) The Ontario Labour Relations Board may inquire into any complaint filed under subsection (2), and section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, except subsection (5), applies with all necessary modifications as if such section, except subsection (5), is enacted in and forms part of this Act.

10. Section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act which applies by reason of section 24(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act states:

(6) Where the trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee, has failed to comply with any of the terms of the determination, any trade union, council of trade unions, employer, employers' organization, person or employee, affected by the determination may, after the expiration of fourteen days from the date of the release of the determination or the date provided in the determination for compliance, whichever is later, notify the Board in writing of such failure, and thereupon the Board shall file in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court a copy of the determination, exclusive of the reasons therefor, if any, in the prescribed form, whereupon the determination shall be entered in the same way as a judgment or order of that court and is enforceable as such.

11. We have treated Mr. Puche's letter as notification of a failure to comply with the Board's order. Pursuant to section 89(6) the Board will file a copy of the decision in the prescribed form in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court.