1418-99-R; 1419-99-R Canadian Health Care Workers, Applicant v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 183, A.F.L., C.I.O., C.L.C., Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 10, 2000
This is an application for a reconsideration of the Board’s decision in this matter dated January 10, 2000, made pursuant to section 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S. O. 1995 ch.1. (the “Act”). The application was received by the Board on February 7, 2000. This is the twentieth day after the date of the Board’s decision, since “day” for the purposes of the Rules (but not the Act) means working day. It was therefore filed in a timely manner.
The applicant notes correctly that the Board’s general approach to requests for reconsideration is to require that the applicant demonstrate that it has new evidence or wishes to make new arguments which would be practically conclusive of the case and that it could not have obtained or made at the time of the original hearing. (See John Entwistle Construction Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1096). In addition, the Board will consider an application for reconsideration where the issue raised concerns broader policy issues that were not addressed in the original decision. This policy, which is, of course, only a general guideline, is based on a need for finality. Once a matter has been litigated and rights have been adjudicated on, no party should be able, or should be required to, relitigate the same matter.
Issues argued
The applicant argues that the Board made two errors in its original decision. These arguments are precisely the same arguments made by counsel at the hearing of this matter. It is not a proper basis for reconsideration to ask the Board to consider the same arguments made by a party the first time.
In addition, the argument consists of little more than a brief statement of the argument and an assertion that the Board is wrong. The Board does not agree that it was wrong. The Board therefore declines to reconsider the decision of January 10, 2000 on this basis.
Fresh evidence
Counsel refers to an application filed under the PSLRTA by the QHC in Board File 2982-99-PS. Since counsel did not burden the Board with a copy of the pleadings in this application or any submissions about the content of those pleadings, I can only assume he is content to have the Board review them to see if they support his conclusions. They do not.
The application was filed January 7, 2000, before the Board’s decision in this file was released. The essential relief sought in the application is a declaration that all office and clerical workers constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, and that SEIU Local 633 be appointed the bargaining agent. The only impact on any employees represented by SEIU Local 183 is a request that a small group of employees at one hospital be moved from the SEIU Local 183 bargaining unit to the proposed bargaining unit. SEIU Local 183 agrees. To accomplish this reconfiguration, of course, requires an order from the Board regardless of what the three parties agree. Thus it is not surprising that the application was brought.
In the application, QHC does appear to describe the units represented by SEIU Local 183 as a series of separate units. The application was filed by QHC prior to the release of the Board’s decision in this file. Perhaps it was being cautious. Perhaps the description merely reflects the state of the collective agreements, which are still not merged. It does not matter. It is apparent that the availability of the relief sought by QHC in that file is not dependent on how the bargaining units of SEIU Local 183 are described. That is, one cannot read the application as seeking to obtain relief under the statute by taking a different position in the subsequent application from that taken before the Board in this case. In any event, it hardly constitutes evidence of collusion between QHC and SEIU Local 183.
This submission is also not a basis for reconsideration of the January 10, 2000 decision.
The Board declines to reconsider the decision of January 10, 2000. This application for reconsideration is dismissed.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board