- June 10, 2021
- Duty of Fair Representation
Second of two decisions. The member (Buckley) applied for leave and reconsideration of a decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against the local because it had failed to establish that a breach of the Code had apparently occurred. Buckley disputed the finding and argued that the original panel had failed to address certain elements of his complaint. The Board found that to the extent that the original panel dealt with Buckley’s complaints it did not err and with respect to the elements of his complaint that the original panel did not expressly deal with, they do not disclose sufficient evidence that a contravention of the Code had apparently occurred. Accordingly, leave for reconsideration was denied and Buckley’s application was dismissed. In arriving at its decision, the Board pointed out that a party is not entitled to reconsideration as of right under the Code; it must first obtain leave. To obtain leave, an applicant must establish a “good arguable case” that the original decision should be overturned, based on one of the established grounds for reconsideration: (1) that the original decision is inconsistent with the principles expressed or implied in the Code; (ii) that a party was denied natural justice; or (iii) that new evidence has emerged that is likely to have a material and determinative effect on the original decision.