Court File and Parties
Christian Labour Association of Canada, Applicant v. St. Andrew’s Residence, Responding Party v. Service Employees’ Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
Before: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
Decision of the Board: March 23, 2000
Decision
1The applicant has filed a Notice of Request for Reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated February 28, 2000 in these matters.
2A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate the matter. Submissions were requested and made prior to the Board issuing its decision dated February 28, 2000. In that decision the Board stated that the applications were dismissed as being untimely.
3The Board’s decision dated February 28, 2000 stated at paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11:
The applicant concedes that “if the decision of the Divisional Court is upheld, then the application is untimely….”
The applicant advises, however, that the employer has filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal the decision of the Divisional Court.
It further expresses the concern that if the decision of the interest board of arbitration is ultimately re-instated as a result of those proceedings, the applicant may be deprived of its opportunity to bring these applications during the open period which would have already passed by the time that determination is made. It is for that reason that the applicant says it has brought the present application and seeks to have a representation vote held and the ballot box sealed.
While there may be some, at least theoretical, merit to the applicant’s expressed concerns, the fact is that the interest arbitration award upon which it relies is currently of no legal effect and consequently, as the applicant effectively concedes, these applications are untimely.
In the event that the kind of scenario the applicant posits does indeed come to pass, the Board would certainly entertain a request to reconsider this decision which, if granted, might have the effect of preserving or reviving the application dates in these matters. The Board will, of course, deal with any such requests should they be made.
4According to the applicant, the Court of Appeal has not yet heard the appeal, thus the possible theoretical concerns of the applicant have not yet transpired.
5In these circumstances the Board having considered the request, finds that it is merely an attempt to relitigate the matter with no new evidence. The Board therefore dismisses the request for reconsideration.
6In the alternative, the applicant raises a concern based on the Board’s rules that no request for reconsideration will be considered where it is filed more than 20 days after the date of the Board’s decision. The applicant submits that “In its decision of February 28, 2000 the Board states it would certainly entertain a request to reconsider this decision. It does not, however, address the fact that more than 20 days will have passed from the date of the Board’s decision when the employer’s appeal is decided”. The applicant therefore requests “that any subsequent applications for reconsideration brought by the Applicant as a result of the employer’s appeal, will be permitted and dealt with on the merits by the Board, notwithstanding the fact it will be filed more than 20 days after February 28, 2000”.
7The Board feels it is implicit in the decision of February 28, 2000 that such a request for reconsideration would be considered if the decision of the Court of Appeal created the kind of scenario contemplated in paragraph 11 of the Board’s decision dated February 28, 2000. Obviously, however, such request should be filed in a timely manner after the decision of the Court of Appeal is released.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board