Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 2125-00-U Date: September 5, 2001
Applicant: Ivan Pletikos Responding Party: National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 112 Intervenor: Bombardier Aerospace
Before: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is an application for reconsideration of a decision made by the Board on August 2, 2001.
2The Board has the discretion to reconsider its decisions under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The general principles applied upon a request for reconsideration were stated In K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185, where the Board stated at paragraph 4:
To avoid abuse of the reconsideration provision and bring some finality to its adjudicated decisions the Board has adopted principles not unlike those of the courts. 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 case. Reconsideration is therefore generally restricted to allowing a party to adduce evidence or to make representations which it did not have a previous opportunity to raise. The Board may also consider such factors as the motives for the request for reconsideration in light of the party’s conduct, and the resulting prejudice to another party if the case is reopened.
3The Board may also reconsider a decision if an obvious error has been made or if the request raises significant and important policy issues which have not been given adequate attention or consideration. See, for example, Toronto Board of Education (Plant Operations), [1998] OLRB Rep. Jan./Feb. 104.
4A careful review of the applicant’s submissions does not reveal circumstances which would lead the Board to reconsider its decision of August 2, 2001. The applicant’s submissions raise no new facts or arguments having any bearing on the outcome of the application. The applicant is attempting to reargue the matter.
5The applicant also submits that the Board was biased against him, particularly because the Board urged him to consider settling the matter with the other parties and because the Board decided, after hearing the applicant’s submissions, that it would not be necessary to hear from the responding party or intervenor.
6“Bias” is not indicated merely because a Vice-Chair finds in favour of one party or another. Nor is it indicated when a Vice-Chair urges a party to open his mind to the prospect of settlement. The Board is not privy to settlement discussions between parties, but it routinely makes the services of Labour Relations Officers available to the parties for the purpose of attempting settlement. A party’s decision to settle or not is entirely up to the party and has no bearing whatsoever on the hearing before the Board.
7The Board declines to exercise its discretion to reconsideration its decision.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board