[1993] OLRB REP. APRIL 355
3068-92-G International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 721, Applicant v. Mohawk Services, Responding Party
BEFORE: Robert D. Howe, Vice-Chair, and Board Members F. B. Reaume and J. Redshaw.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 26,1993
In a decision dated February 23, 1993 regarding this referral of a grievance to arbitration under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board awarded the following remedies:
For the foregoing reasons, the Board, pursuant to section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, hereby declares that the responding party is bound by the current Ontario Erectors Association Collective Agreement with the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers and The Ironworkers District Council of Ontario comprised of Local Unions 700, 721, 736, 759, 765, and 786; and further declares that the responding party has violated that Collective Agreement in the manner described above. To remedy those violations of the Collective Agreement, the Board hereby orders that the responding party pay to the applicant forthwith damages in the amount of $16,298.10.
On March 31, 1993, the Board received the following letter dated March 29, 1993:
Ontario Labour Relations Board
400 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1V4
Attention: Mrs. T. A. Innis, Registrar Dear Madam:
Re: Mohawk Services ats Ironworkers, Local 721 - OLRB File No. 3068-92-G
On February 23rd, 1993 a panel of the Board chaired by Mr. Robert D. Howe rendered a decision in which the panel directed Mohawk Services to pay damages in the sum of $16,298.10. Ms. Deborah Doxtator represented Mohawk Services. Mr. Gary Caroline represented the applicant.
Ms. Doxtator has instructed us to make an application for reconsideration under s.108(1) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. She alleges that the amount of damages awarded is wrong and that the value of the contract in question was considerably less. Accordingly, the damages should have been considerably less. I have asked Ms. Doxtator to provide me with the appropriate documents for my review and submission to Mr. Caroline and the Board.
Please regard this letter as the Respondent's application for reconsideration.
Yours very truly,
SIMPSON, WIGLE
"John M. Wigle"
John M. Wigle
- Mr. Wigle also forwarded a copy of that letter to his client and to counsel for the applicant, who wrote to the Board as follows in a letter faxed to the Board on April 7, 1993:
Ms. T. A. Inniss
Registrar
Ontario Labour Relations Board
400 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1V4
Dear Ms. Inniss:
RE: Iron Workers, Local 721 v. Mohawk Services
OLRB File No.3068-92-G
We are in receipt of a letter addressed to you by counsel for the responding party in the above noted Referral of Grievance to Arbitration.
The applicant opposes the responding party's Request for Reconsideration on the following grounds.
i) This request for consideration has been filed beyond the time limits established for such matters in the Board's Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, it has not presented any reason or submission to the Board with respect to why it should exercise its discretion and entertain this Request beyond the 30 day time limit.
ii) With respect to the merits of this Reconsideration, we submit that the responding party has not pleaded sufficient facts and material for the Board to even entertain such a request.
iii) The responding party in the person of its owner was present and participated in the hearing of this grievance. Specifically, she was present while the applicant led evidence on the issue of the quantum of damages. She was given an opportunity to cross examine the applicant's witness. Furthermore, the responding party declined to call any evidence with respect to this issue. While the responding party may be disappointed with the outcome, there are absolutely no reasons either pleaded or evident which would justify the Board reconsidering its decision.
iv) The applicant requests that the responding party's Request for Reconsideration be dismissed.
Yours truly, "Gary Caroline"
Gary Caroline
In a letter dated March 29, 1993, which was received by the Board on April 13, 1993, Mr. Wigle expressed the view that "any decision by the Board regarding [Mr. Caroline's] motion for dismissal of the application would be premature and unfair."
Subsection 108(1) of the Labour Relations Act provides:
The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any matter before it, and the action or decision of the Board thereon is final and conclusive for all purposes, but nevertheless the Board may at any time, if it considers it advisable to do so, reconsider any decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling made by it and vary or revoke any such decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling.
- Also material to the disposition of this matter are the following rules contained in the Board's new Rules of Procedure, which came into force on January 1, 1993:
Forms and Practice Notes
- The Board may set the forms to be used in its cases, and may change those forms from time to time. Copies of the forms may be obtained from the Board's office in Toronto.
Filing and Delivery
- All filings with the Board must be made in the proper form, if any, and in the way required by these Rules.
Requests for Reconsideration
A request for reconsideration under subsection 108(1) of the Act must include complete written representations in support of the request.
No request for reconsideration will be considered where it is filed thirty (30) or more days after the date of the Board's decision, except with the permission of the Board.
Pursuant to Rule 4, the Board has set Form A-47 as the form to be used in filing a request for reconsideration under subsection 108(1) of the Act. The responding party has not used that form. Moreover, its request for reconsideration fails to comply with the requirements of the Rules in a number of other material respects. It was not filed within the period specified in Rule 85, and contains nothing which would prompt the Board to grant permission for late filing. It also fails to include complete written representations in support of the request for reconsideration. Moreover, it does not contain any representations or submissions which the responding party did not have an opportunity to raise at the hearing of this matter which preceded the aforementioned decision.
For the foregoing reasons, the responding party's application for reconsideration is hereby denied.