0646-99-U Russell Jarvis, Applicant v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 30, Responding Party v. Dean-Chandler Roofing Limited, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 2, 2001
This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated February 2, 2001.
Subsection 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") gives the Board discretion to reconsider any decision or order made by it and to vary or revoke any such decision or order. The Board has adopted a number of principles by which it will be guided in determining whether or not to exercise its discretion to reconsider a decision. An application for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party dissatisfied with the result of the Board's decision to reargue its case or to introduce evidence that it could have introduced at the hearing.
The principles upon which the Board acts in dealing with applications for reconsideration are well known. These principles are outlined in Cineplex Odeon Corporation, [1996] OLRB Rep. Nov./Dec. 922, at page 924:
As to the general principles applicable on applications for reconsideration, there was little dispute. They are distilled in the following two quotations. First from Canadian Union Of General Employees, [1975] OLRB Rep. April 320:
- Generally, the Board will not reconsider a decision unless a party proposes to adduce new evidence which could not previously have been obtained by reasonable diligence and the new evidence is such that, if adduced, it would be practically conclusive or a party wishes to make representations or objections not already considered by the Board that he had no opportunity to raise previously. (International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd., [1963] OLRB Rep. 234, 64 C.L.L.C. paragraph 15.493 (Ont. H.C.); Detroit River Construction Case (1962) C.L.L.C. paragraph 16,260). Both legs of this principle depend upon the applicant having been diligent and therefore having had no opportunity to draw the Board's attention to the objection of its concern. The applicant in the case at hand and his lawyer were not diligent in that they were given notice of the hearing date in the matter by the Board. Accordingly they would not appear to come with the ambit of the principle.
Secondly, from John Entwistle Construction Limited, [1979] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1096 after quoting a portion of the above passage from Canadian Union Of General Employees:
These are general standards which the Board has developed as guidelines and which are useful not just to guide the Board in making its decisions, but also to allow parties who may be affected by the Board's decisions some degree of certainty of what to expect from the Board. While it is important for the purpose of certainty that these standards generally be adhered to, it is equally important that they not be followed inflexibly.
- In K-Mart Canada Limited (Peterborough), [1981] OLRB Rep. Feb. 185, 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 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.
The 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.
In the instant application, the applicant has filed with the Board a detailed re-iteration of the argument and factual assertions that he made at the consultation. He again itemizes referrals from the hiring hall that he considers should have been offered to him. All of these assertions either were made, or could have been made at the consultation.
A careful review of the applicant’s submissions does not reveal circumstances which would lead the Board to reconsider its decision. The submissions reflect the applicant’s disagreement with the Board’s decision. However, the reasons for the disposition of this matter are set out in that decision. In essence, the applicant is attempting to reargue the matter.
Accordingly, the Board declines to reconsider its decision.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board