Ontario Labour Relations Board
4226-98-U Vic Perroni, Applicant v. Sub. Local & Local 1-500 IWA & NATIONAL IWA, Responding Party v. MacMillan Bathurst, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 11, 2000
This is a request for reconsideration of a decision of the Board dated March 1, 2000 to dismiss an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging violation of section 74.
The request for reconsideration was filed on June 29, 2000, well beyond the 20-day time period specified by the Board’s Rules of Procedure. However, it appears that the applicant did attempt to file a reconsideration request in the wrong form on March 20, 2000 and subsequently re-filed it using the correct form. Under the circumstances, the Board will permit the application to be filed late.
Pursuant to section 114(1) of the Act, the Board has the discretion to reconsider any decision it has made. That section states:
(1) The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any matter before it, and the action or decision of the Board thereon is final and conclusive for all purposes, but nevertheless the Board may at any time, if it considers it advisable to do so, reconsider any decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling made by it and vary or revoke any such decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling.
The principles applied by the Board upon a request for reconsideration set out in John Entwistle Construction Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1096, as follows:
The Board exercises its jurisdiction under section 95(1) [now 114(1)] of the Act to reconsider and vary or revoke any decision with care and caution in order not to undermine the finality of its decisions and, as stated by the Board in Canadian Union of General Employees, [1975] OLRB Rep. April 320:
Generally, the Board will not reconsider a decision unless a party proposes to adduce 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.
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.
- In K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185, the Board stated at paragraph 4:
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 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 case. Reconsideration is therefore generally restricted to allowing a party to adduce evidence to 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 the party’s conduct, and the resulting prejudice to another party if the case is reopened.
The Board may also reconsider a decision if an obvious error has been made or if the request raises significant and important policy issues which have not been given adequate attention or consideration. See, for example, Toronto Board of Education (Plant Operations), [1998] OLRB Rep. Jan./Feb. 104.
In his submission, the applicant has made a number of unsubstantiated allegations against this Vice-Chair, and against the Board. He also appears to have misunderstood the import of the Board’s decision of June 28, 1999 to the effect that it would not dismiss the matter outright on the ground that it failed to disclose a prima facie case. That decision meant that the application would be scheduled for a consultation; it was not a decision on the merits.
A careful review of the applicant’s submissions does not reveal circumstances which would lead the Board to reconsider its decision of March 1, 2000. The submissions reflect the applicant’s disagreement with the Board’s decision. However, the reasons for the disposition of this matter are set out in that decision and the applicant has raised nothing in his submissions to cause me to reconsider it. Nor has he shown how he was prejudiced by being required to proceed on the day scheduled for consultation.
The request for reconsideration is denied.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board