[1997] OLRB REP. MARCH/APRIL 233
0018-96-R; 0019-96-G Ontario Pipe Trades Council of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Applicant v. Global Mechanical Ltd., Intercontinental Plumbing and Fire Protection Co. Ltd., Dynamic Power Excavating Ltd., IPJ Investments Ltd., Responding Parties
BEFORE: Russell C. Goodfellow, Vice-Chair, and Board Members F. B. Reaume and J. Redshaw.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 20, 1997
This is an application for reconsideration. The application relates to a decision of this panel of the Board dated January 23, 1997. In that decision, the Board determined and declared that there had been a "sale of business from Intercontinental Plumbing and Fire Protection Ltd. to Global Mechanical Ltd. and that the latter company is bound to the collective agreement between the former company and the applicant".
The basis for the request for reconsideration is that:
“…..the Board erred in failing to set out the arguments of the parties on the sale of a business issue (and on the related employer issue)."
and that
“…..the Board erred in its decision by failing to address the arguments raised by both parties, including case law, in determining that a sale of business occurred."
Pursuant to section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 the Board has a broad discretion to reconsider any decision or order made by it and to vary or revoke any such decision or order. However, the Board has repeatedly indicated that it will not reconsider its decisions unless there are good reasons for doing so. This approach furthers the interest of finality in Board decision-making and, in practical terms, discourages parties from seeking to delay the implementation of Board orders. The Board has been prepared to reconsider an earlier decision or order where that decision contains an obvious error; where the request raises important policy issues which have not been adequately addressed; where new evidence is sought to be presented which could not, with the exercise of due diligence, have been obtained and presented previously and which could, if accepted, make a difference to the decision; and where representations are sought to be made which the party had no previous opportunity to make.
In the Board's view, the present application does not establish sufficient grounds for the Board to reconsider its decision. The applicant is correct that the Board's decision did not reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, recite the parties' arguments or refer to the case law presented to it. However, it did provide a seven-page decision in which it set out the relevant facts and applied its understanding of the law to those facts.
The Board is sometimes faulted in the labour relations community for not rendering its decisions in an expeditious fashion. In order to fulfill its goal of timely decision-making, the Board is often required to determine how much detail a given decision warrants. In some cases, for example where the issues are complex, the evidence and arguments are detailed and lengthy, and the issues of significance to the broader labour relations community, the Board may err in favour of more detailed reasons even if that means delay in the issuance of that and/or other decisions. In other cases, where the law is relatively settled, the evidence relatively brief, and the outcomes glaringly apparent, the Board wtll err on the side of brevity and expedition. All of this, of course, is subject to the entitlement of a party to a fair hearing and to the receipt of reasons l'or the Board's decision. In this case, the Board is satisfied that it has more than met its obligations as a quasi-judicial tribunal subject to the requirements of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to provide adequate reasons for its decision.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.