Ontario Labour Relations Board
Marc A. Crockford, Applicant v. Warehousemen, Transportation and General Workers Union of the Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union Local 715 of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 15, 2000
Reasons for Decision
[1]. This is a reconsideration request by the applicant of a decision issued by the Board on December 7, 1999.
[2]. In that decision the Board dismissed the application in its entirety.
[3]. On February 29, 2000 the applicant filed a request for reconsideration of this decision.
[4]. In the Board's opinion, the request for reconsideration in this matter is really a request to relitigate the matter. As the Board stated in Wayne Barnes v. Canadian Security Union, Board File 0003-96-U:
- In exercising its discretionary powers, the Board has on numerous instances noted the critical importance of finality of its decisions in the labour relations context. For this reason, the Board has been careful to limit access to its reconsideration powers and has generally acceded to reconsideration requests in a relatively narrow range of circumstances. Generally speaking, an application for reconsideration is not an opportunity for an unsuccessful party to relitigate a matter before the Board. Rather, the Board will reconsider its decisions where it is established that the party seeking reconsideration was, for some serious reason, prevented from advancing a position or from producing evidence that would be practically conclusive of the matter, or where the decision sought to be reconsidered raises important issues of Board policy. Thus, in K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185 at paragraph 4 it is stated:
To avoid abuse of the reconsideration provision and bring some finality to its adjudicated decisions, the Board has adopted principles not unlike those of the courts. The Board will not normally accede to a request to reconsider unless the party requesting the reconsideration intends to adduce new evidence which was not previously available to them by the exercise of due diligence, and then only where, such additional evidence, if proved would be likely to make a substantial difference to the outcome of the cases. Reconsideration is therefore generally restricted to allowing a party to adduce evidence or make representations which it did not have a previous opportunity to raise. The Board may also consider such factors as the motives for the request for reconsideration in light of a party’s conduct, and the resulting prejudice to another party if the case is reopened. (See generally International Nickel Company of Canada, 63 CLLC 16,284; The Detroit River Construction Limited, 63 CLLC 16, 260; National Steel Car Corporation Limited, [1966] OLRB Rep Apr. 55; Canadian Union of General Employees, [1975] OLRB Rep. Apr. 320; York University, [1976] OLRB Rep. Apr. 187; affirmed sub nom. Jordan v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, York University Faculty Association, York University, 78 CLLC 14,132 (Ont. Div. Ct.).
(My emphasis added)
[5]. On basically all the issues determined by the Board the applicant is obviously concerned that the Board’s decision lacks merit and is perverse. The applicant therefore attempts to relitigate these issues. However, there is nothing in the request for reconsideration that persuades the Board that its decision dated December 7, 1999 should be reconsidered.
[6]. During the course of the request for reconsideration the applicant raises many issues over which the Board would have no jurisdiction (i.e. whether or not a court’s decision was issued without jurisdiction, conduct of lawyers acting for the applicant). The Board would relitigate, as it pointed out in paragraph 2 of its decision dated December 7, 1999, that it is not every issue that the board has jurisdiction to determine.
[7]. The applicant raises allegations about the integrity of the Board. Without specifically commenting on all such allegations, the Board finds such comments groundless. In regards to allegations that the panel changed from T. W. Sargeant, J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson to T. W. Sargeant, J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague, the Board would point out that though a panel consisting of T. W. Sargeant, J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson issued a decision on this file, such decision was purely a procedural decision. That panel was not seized for substantive matters.
[8]. The applicant does raise, besides allegations concerning the Board members, an allegation that the union “additionally wrote and fraudulently manufactured the doctor’s report in exhibit 94 page 19 of the application”. This was an allegation that could have reasonably been raised prior to this request for reconsideration. In any event as stated in the original decision this is the type of bald allegation that is not supported by any documentation.
[9]. The request for reconsideration is therefore dismissed. As a result of this dismissal the Board will not grant any of the remedies or demands requested by the applicant in his request for reconsideration.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board