Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3633-99-U Date: June 29, 2000
Between: Louise M Monney, Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1750, Responding Party.
Before: Timothy W Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1This is an application for reconsideration of the Board’s decision in this matter dated June 5, 2000. In that decision the Board dismissed the application noting that the termination of the applicant, the subject matter of the application, occurred over ten years prior to the filing of the application. The Board found there was “nothing in the material filed that justifies a delay of this matter”. The Board further determined that in any event there was nothing pleaded which would lead the Board to conclude the applicant had a reasonable chance of success. The Board found that the applicant’s pleadings on their face did not establish that the union had acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith within the meaning of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”). The Board therefore exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act and dismissed the application.
2In the request for reconsideration the applicant submits:
In March 1988 I was feeling sick while working at Workers’ Compensation Board and was told by the supervisor John Young and also by a counsellor that I should be home. A medical report was requested from me before I would be allowed to return to work. I spoke to the counsellor from Jamaica and he advised me to go on disability allowance and I refused to do so.
I would like the Board to change the time frame and the way in [sic] I was treated when I contacted the union and workplace. Also to acknowledge my hard work while going through my turmoil and catastrophe of life.
To get all medical records would take a lot of time but I have attached the main note from my family doctor. More detailed information can be obtained from him.
3In considering the merits of the application for reconsideration, it is important to have regard 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 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] ORB 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 if 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.).
4In these circumstances the Board does not find, in the request for reconsideration, any reason that persuades the Board that its decision of June 5, 2000 should be reconsidered. The Board finds the request is merely an attempt to relitigate the matter.
5In the result, the application for reconsideration is dismissed.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board