International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200 v. S. & S. Glass & Aluminum (1993) Ltd.
0977-99-R International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200 and the Ontario Council of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Applicant v. S. & S. Glass & Aluminum (1993) Ltd. and Paul Skov carrying on business as S. & S. Glass & Renovators, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 22, 2000
1This is a request for reconsideration filed with the Board on March 14, 2000 with respect to the Board’s decision dated January 6, 2000. Before determining the reconsideration request, it will be useful to set out some background information relating to this matter.
2Board File No. 0977-99-R is an application under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). The applicant filed its application with the Board on June 29, 1999. The responding parties did not file a response to the application.
3On November 10, 1999, counsel for the applicant requested that the Board decide this matter on the facts alleged in the application without a hearing as the responding parties had failed to file a response. In its decision dated January 6, 2000, the Board granted the applicant’s request and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Board’s Rules of Procedures, issued the following declarations:
(a) declares that S. & S. Glass & Aluminum (1993) Ltd. and Paul Skov carrying on business as S. & S. Glass & Renovators are associated or related businesses or activities under common direction and control within the meaning of section 1(4) of the Act and constitute a single employer for the purposes of the Act;
(b) declares that S. & S. Glass & Aluminum (1993) Ltd. and Paul Skov carrying on business as S. & S. Glass & Renovators are bound to the collective agreement between The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and The Ontario Council of The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and the Architectural Glass and Metal Contractors Association effective from May 1, 1998 to April 30, 2001.
4As stated earlier, the request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated January 6, 2000 was filled with the Board on March 14, 2000. As it was made after 20 days of the date of the Board’s decision, it is, pursuant to Rule 96 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure, untimely and is dismissed on that basis.
5Even if the Board were to exercise its discretion to consider the request for reconsideration, it would also result in it being dismissed on its merits. Before assessing the submissions made by the responding party in support of its request, regard must be had to the principles the Board has invariably applied in deciding whether to grant a request for reconsideration. A concise statement of the relevant principles is set out in Cineplex Odeon Corporation, [1996] OLRB Rep. Nov./Dec. 922 where the Board wrote at page 924:
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 representatives 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 to draw the Board’s attention to the object 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 within 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 they may 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