Ontario Labour Relations Board
1692-99-U Alfonso Enrique Mendoza, Applicant v. National Aerospace Transportation and General Workers CAW-Canada Local 27, Responding Party v. Siemens Canada Limited, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 1, 2000
1The applicant has filed a request for reconsideration of the decision issued in this matter on August 10, 2000.
2Counsel for the applicant acknowledges that the applicant did not file his request for reconsideration within the time limits specified by the Rules. Counsel submits the “twenty day guideline was not adequate in this case. The applicant was inexperienced in Labour Relations Board matters, as was the paralegal who represented him at the Board. The applicant was not aware of the Board’s power to reconsider decisions until he retained counsel. It was also at this point that the applicant became aware twenty days had already elapsed since the Board’s decision. Counsel further submits “The applicants’ solicitor was not retained until September 21, 2000. This application was prepared as soon as possible after that date”.
3It is to be noted that no request for extension to file an application to reconsider the decision was filed. The Board has often held that the fact an applicant does not make himself aware of his rights is not an adequate reason to relieve against time limits. The applicant furthermore had been represented by a paralegal at the hearing held in this matter on July 19, 2000.
4The Board is therefore not persuaded to extend the time limits for filing the application for reconsideration in this matter. On this basis the application for reconsideration is dismissed.
5In any event even if the Board were to consider the application for reconsideration, it would not do so in this instance. The basis for the application is that the Board’s decision to dismiss those parts of the pleadings that related to incidents prior to September 13, 1998, one year prior to the date of application was wrong in law and arbitrary. It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that the whole chain of events prior to September 13, 1998 should have been considered in evaluating the conduct of the union as in counsel’s submission such events established a “pattern of mistreatment of the applicant by both his Employer and his Union”. Moreover counsel for the applicant submits that the Board made an obvious error when it failed to consider an event that did occur during the one year period. In counsel’s submission the Board failed to consider paragraphs 1 to 10 of the applicants pleadings “which dealt with events which occurred during the time period that the Board purported to deal with”. In its written decision dated August 10, 2000 the Board had indicated that it “would hear evidence” only relating to paragraphs 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54 and 55 of the pleadings”.
6A full hearing was held on July 19, 2000 where the applicant and his representative were given an opportunity to make full submissions on the preliminary issues. The Board having heard submissions from all parties made its ruling concerning matters it would hear evidence about. Items 1-10 seem to deal with an incident that even on the applicant’s pleadings occurred on “Tuesday 1, 1998”. No submissions were made by the representative of the applicant, having heard the Board’s ruling that it dismissed those parts of the pleadings that occurred prior to September 13, 1998, that the Board should hear evidence relating to paragraphs 1 through 10 of the pleadings. No attempt was made to clarify any part of the Board’s ruling in this regard, and no attempt to led evidence on these paragraphs occurred.
7A request for reconsideration is not a hearing de novo and is not an appeal. Further it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue a case or raise new arguments. In the Board’s opinion this request for reconsideration is at best really a request to relitigate the matter and therefore on this basis such request would also be dismissed.
8For all of the above reasons the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board