1539-98-U Yvette Ziadé, Applicant v. York University Staff Association, Responding Party v. York University, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 4, 2000
1This was originally a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, R.S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (“the Act”), read with section 74. A decision was issued on April 3, 2000. A substantial reconsideration request was filed on May 15, 2000.
2I have carefully considered the reconsideration request. It challenges the decision of April 3, 2000 in several respects and on numerous grounds. However, there were no matters raised in the request which either were not, or could not have been raised before the decision was issued. As stated in K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185, at para. 4:
… 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 cases. …
I am not persuaded by the matters raised in the request that my original decision should be reconsidered. I am further not persuaded that the applicant has made out a case against the responding union of any violation of section 74 of the Act. The request is therefore denied.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board