Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3925-98-U Date: April 10, 2000
Between: Lou Calabro, Applicant v. CUPE Local 10, Responding Party v. City of Toronto, Intervenor.
Before: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated March 9, 2000.
2Before dealing with the merits of the request, it is useful to set out the Board’s procedure in dealing with such requests. First, as is suggested by the term “reconsideration”, requests for reconsideration are generally heard by the panel of the Board which made the decision. The other principles on applications for reconsideration are set out in the following excerpt from 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 representations 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. HC); Detroit River Construction Case (1962) CLLC ¶16,260). Both legs of this principle depend upon the applicant having been diligent and therefore having had no opportunity to draw the Board’s attention to the objection 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 to 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 Union of General Employees case, supra, are satisfied here, the request does raise significant and important issues of Board policy and for this reason the Board will review its decision to determine if it should vary or revoke the decision.
See also K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185, which mentions the motives for the request and any resulting prejudice as factors to be considered.
The Board in that case also stated later at page 927:
“Reconsideration is not available for the reargument of cases or more creative theories thought of later, in light of new information or jurisprudence; this has been affirmed repeatedly in the Board’s jurisprudence. See for instance, Silverwood Dairies, [1977] OLRB Rep. June 392.”
3But for one aspect, the application for reconsideration is simply an attempt to re-argue the case. All of the arguments and facts presented in the application were before the Board at the consultation. Neither the original application nor the request for reconsideration make out a violation of section 74 of the Act.
4The only new allegation is an allegation that the Board is “biased” or that the decision “lacks integrity”. The only fact which the applicant alleges in support of this serious allegation is the fact that he heard rumours that the case would be dismissed prior to the date of the Board’s decision. The fact that there were rumours is not surprising, but the Board cannot control or have regard to such speculation.
5The application for reconsideration is dismissed.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board