Ontario Labour Relations Board
1350-99-U Marc A. Crockford, et al, Applicants v. Warehousemen, Transportation and General Workers Union, Local 715 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union District Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; National Grocers Co. Ltd., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 21, 2001
Reasons for Decision
1This is a timely request for reconsideration of the decision of the Board dated October 19, 2000.
2The request for reconsideration is extremely lengthy. It also refers to numerous cases, copies of which were not provided to the Board. In addition, the applicant’s file was misplaced for some time. All of these factors have delayed the issuance of this decision.
3The Board’s practice on applications for reconsideration is set out in Cineplex Odeon Corporation, [1996] OLRB Rep. Nov./Dec. 922 where the Board wrote 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 CLLC ¶15.493 (Ont. HC); Detroit River Construction Case (1962) CLLC ¶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 within 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