Nipissing University Facility Association v. Nipissing University
File No.: 2525-00-R Date: November 30, 2000
Before: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
Decision of the Board
[1]. This is an application for reconsideration.
[2]. In its decision of November 28, 2000 the Board ordered that a vote be held on November 30, 2000 for the following voting constituency:
all contract academic staff employed by Nipissing University in the City of North Bay and the City of Bracebridge who provide instruction in at least one university degree credit course in any calendar year, save and except the President, Vice-President Academic, Vice-President Administration and Finance, Registrar, Deans, Associate Deans, Administrative Assistants to the Deans, Director of Library Services, Academic Counsellors, Laboratory Technicians, and academic staff employed by Nipissing University on leave from or on secondment from another university or employer.
[3]. The Board also sent out voting arrangements.
[4]. In its decision of November 28, 2000 the Board in part made the following determination at paragraph 3.
The responding party was duly served with the application material on November 23, 2000, according to the certificate of delivery filed by the applicant. The responding party alleges that the material did not come to the attention of an authorized representative of the University until November 27, 2000. The responding party, therefore, submits the date for delivery for response is November 29, 2000. The Board disagrees. There is no reason to question that this application was faxed to the responding party on November 23, 2000. The Board is not willing to extend the time for filing a response in this matter. Such response was due on November 27, 2000 and was not filed within that time limit.
[5]. It is well known in the community that rarely are extensions granted to file responses when dealing with a certification application. The intent of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) and rules in relation ordering a vote, is that such vote should, if possible, take place within five days of when the application for certification is filed.
[6]. In a letter dated November 29, 2000 (faxed to the Board shortly after 4:00 p.m.) counsel for the responding party seeks a reconsideration of the Board’s decision of November 28, 2000. The Board has carefully considered the reconsideration request and is not prepared to alter the decision of November 28, 2000. It should be pointed out that in its earlier correspondence the applicant had submitted that for the purposes of this application the date of delivery was November 27, 2000. The Board in its decision did not agree with such a submission, as is clear from its ruling. There is no argument that in fact the application for certification was faxed to the responding party on November 23, 2000 and therefore that this is the date of delivery.
[7]. A request for reconsideration to be successful must raise compelling submissions which could not reasonably have been advanced earlier. It is not an opportunity to relitigate a matter. In the Board’s opinion this request for reconsideration does not raise any new submissions that could not reasonably been advanced earlier.
[8]. The applicant also has made certain requests to the Board. The Board has considered these requests and is not prepared at this time to accede to any such requests.
[9]. The Board did however change the location of where the vote was to be conducted from the original designation to F-200 North Bay Campus.
[10]. As set out in paragraph 9 of the November 28, 2000 decision the parties are free to make representations to the Board “about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification”, within the time limits set out in such paragraph.
[11]. The request for reconsideration by the responding party is therefore denied.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board