Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3201-99-U Logiacco Nazareno, Applicant v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Responding Party.
Before: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board; April 14, 2000
1This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated March, 2000 that was filed with the Board on April 6, 2000. In that decision the Board dismissed the applicant’s complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 ('the Act').
2An overview of the basic principles that the Board will consider in a request for reconsideration is set out in Cineplex Odeon Corporation, [1996] OLRB Rep. Nov./Dec 922 as follows:
As to the general principles applicable on applications for reconsideration, there was little dispute. They are distilled in the following two quotations. First from Canadian Union of General Employees, [1975] OLRB Rep. April 320:
- Generally, the Board will not reconsider a decision unless a party proposes to adduce new evidence which could not previously have been obtained by reasonable diligence and the new evidence is such that, if adduced, it would be practically conclusive or a party wishes to make representations or objections not already considered by the Board that he had no opportunity to raise previously. (International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd., [1963] OLRB Rep. 234, 64 CLLC ¶15.493 (Ont. H.C.); Detroit River Construction Case (1962) CLLC ¶16,260). Both legs of this principle depend upon the applicant having been diligent and therefore having had no opportunity to draw the Board’s attention to the objection of its concern. The applicant in the case at hand and his lawyer were not diligent in that they were given notice of the hearing date in the matter by the Board. Accordingly they would not appear to come with the ambit of the principle.
Secondly, from John Entwistle Construction Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1096 after quoting a portion of the above passage from Canadian Union of General Employees:
These are general standards which the Board has developed as guidelines and which are useful not just to guide the Board in making its decisions, but also to allow parties who may be affected by the Board’[s decisions some degree of certainty of what the expect from the Board. While it is important for the purpose of certainty that these standards generally be adhered to, it is equally important that they not be followed inflexibly. Although neither of the two conditions precedent stated in the Canadian Union of General Employees case, supra, are satisfied here, the request does raise significant and important issues of Board policy and for this reason the Board will review its decision to determine if it should vary or revoke the decision.
3The applicant stated in support of his request that the material facts and representations relied on were in an attached letter. That letter was a replica of the original letter forwarded to the Board in his application. There was an additional note on the bottom of the letter reiterating similar facts to those in his original application namely that he was unhappy with the representation that the responding union had provided to him for his Workers’ Safety and Insurance Board matter. These facts were relied on by the applicant in the original application (see paragraph 3 of the March 9, 2000 decision) and were assumed to be true for the purpose of the original determination.
4Essentially the applicant has restated his position in his request for reconsideration. That is not the proper basis for the Board to reconsider and I decline to do so.
5The request for reconsideration is therefore dismissed.
"Marilyn Silverman"
for the Board