- May 26, 2021
- Certifications/Decertifications
In its decision dated December 13, 2017, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) considered a request for reconsideration of a Board decision in which determined a site specific bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining. The Union had applied for a bargaining unit of house crew audio-visual technicians and riggers regularly employed at the Sheraton Centre in Toronto whereas the Employer took the position that an all employee unit in the City of Toronto was appropriate. The Board dismissed each of the Employer’s arguments and dismissed the request for consideration.
The Employer made a number of arguments in support of its request for reconsideration. The Board dismissed each of these arguments, reiterating that the grounds where the Board will reconsider a decision are narrow. In the interest of finality, the Board will exercise its reconsideration power sparingly. It is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.
First, the Employer argued the Board did not consider the appropriateness of the Union’s applied for bargaining unit. The Board declined to vary the decision on the basis of this argument, as the Board had previously clearly considered the bargaining unit applied by the Union. Further, the Board is not required to consider the appropriateness of a unit only with reference to the written description of the bargaining unit and nothing else.
Further, the Employer argued that the Board should reconsider the decision because in the original decision it improperly reversed the onus of proof. The Board declined to reconsider on this basis as it did not rely on the burden of proof in making its decision.
The Employer also argued that Board failed to address evidence, properly weigh evidence of interchange, and made incorrect findings of fact. On this point the Board found that these arguments could have been made or were made at the hearing. The Board was entitled to reject these arguments. The Board found this basis for reconsideration to be an attempt to re-argue the case and improper grounds for reconsideration.