3882-99-U William Kenneth Mayer, Applicant v. C.A.W. Local 112, Brian Murphy and Merv Grey, Responding Parties v. Bombardier Aerospace, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 18, 2000
[1]. This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision of May 29, 2000 dismissing the applicant’s application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (“the Act”).
[2]. The applicant attempted to file his reconsideration request on July 26, 2000, but the Deputy Registrar returned his application because it was not in the correct form and did not otherwise comply with the Board’s Rules of Procedure. Subsequently, the request for reconsideration was filed on August 8, 2000. Rule 96 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides as follows:
- No request for reconsideration will be considered where it is filed more than twenty (20) days after the date of the Board's decision, except with the permission of the Board.
[3]. The applicant did not explain why the Board should entertain his request for reconsideration which, even had it been in the proper form on July 26, 2000, would have been filed well beyond the time limits set out in Rule 96. On that basis alone, the Board is not prepared to reconsider its decision of May 29, 2000.
[4]. Even if the request for reconsideration been filed in a timely fashion, or had the applicant provided sufficient explanation as to the delay in filing, the Board would have declined to reconsider the matter in any event. The applicant’s request for reconsideration is, for the most part, a repeat of the allegations raised in the original section 74 application. There appear to be some new allegations (the relevance of which is unclear) with no explanation as to why they could not have been previously raised. Generally, the Board does not reconsider a decision on the basis of allegations which could have been raised in the original application. The applicant has not established a basis for reconsideration.
[5]. The request for reconsideration is denied.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board