2700-99-U Lyle E. Junkin, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 576 (CUPE), Responding Party v. The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 10, 2000
This is a request for reconsideration under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 S.O. 1995, c.1 of the Board’s decision dated July 17, 2000. It was filed with the Board on August 15, 2000.
An 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 to 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.
In light of these considerations, the applicant does not seek to adduce new evidence which it could not have obtained and adduced previously and which would materially impact upon the Board’s decision.
In this request for reconsideration the applicant is reiterating his position that he does not like the actions of the responding union primarily in relation to the granting of a leave of absence to another employee. The Board found that those actions did not amount to a violation of section 74 of the Act as they were not made in a fashion that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
Having regard to the applicant’s submissions contained in his request, the Board is not persuaded that the decision of July 17, 2000 should be reconsidered. The request for reconsideration is denied.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board