Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3051-95-R Date: August 14, 2000
Between: The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, Applicant v. Volta Electrical Contractors Ltd. and Westbridge Electric Contractors Ltd. and 1086289 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Urban Electrical Contractors, Responding Parties.
Before: Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1This is a request for reconsideration by the responding party of a Board decision made on July 19, 1999. Consistent with the Board’s practice in dealing with reconsideration requests, the Registrar requested the applicant to comment on the application. In considering this application, the Board has reviewed the submissions contained in the application for reconsideration as well as the submissions filed on behalf of the applicant, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 (“Local 353”).
2In the decision dated July 19, 1999, the Board found that there had been a sale of a business from Volta Electrical Contractors Ltd. (“Volta”) to 1086289 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Urban Electrical Contractors (“Urban”) and that Volta and Urban constituted one employer for purposes of the Labour Relations Act (the “Act”). The Board also declared that Urban was bound to the relevant collective agreement.
3Subsequent to the release of the July 19, 1999 decision, Urban made a timely request for reconsideration. This reconsideration request raised a number of issues, including the effect of a vote in a certification application made by Local 353 against Urban and the delay in issuing the July 19, 1999 decision. As is the Board’s usual practice, the request for reconsideration was referred by the Board to the Vice-Chair who participated in the proceeding. After considering the submissions made in the request for reconsideration and the submissions from Local 353, the Board issued a decision dated June 6, 2000, dismissing the request for reconsideration.
4The application now before the Board is therefore a second request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated July 19, 1999. This second request also raises issues relating to the January 6, 2000 reconsideration decision. It raises for the first time the issue of whether the Vice-Chair who participated in the July 19, 1999 decision should deal with the reconsideration request. The responding party requests, among other things, that a hearing be held before a new panel of the Board to address the issues raised in the second request for reconsideration.
5It is the usual practice of the Board to assign reconsideration requests to the panel or the Vice-Chair of the Board that made the decision under reconsideration. Following this practice, this matter has been referred to the Vice-Chair who participated in the July 19, 1999 decision. After reviewing and considering this request for reconsideration, it is my conclusion that it is appropriate, in these somewhat unusual and unique circumstances, for this matter to be dealt with at a hearing by a current Vice-Chair. Accordingly, the Registrar is directed to set this second request for reconsideration down for hearing before a Vice-Chair.
“Ken Petryshen”
for the Board