[1986] OLRB Rep. October 1335
1417-86-U Robert Williams, Complainant, v. Dough Delight Ltd., Respondent
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and E. G. Theobald.
APPEARANCES: Robert Williams on his own behalf; Paul Young, Dan Devlin, Lorna Barrett and Stanley Bolton for the respondent.
DECISION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN G. T. SURDYKOWSKI AND BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; October 15, 1986
The name of the respondent is amended to read: "Dough Delight Ltd."
This is a complaint made under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent has treated the complainant in a manner that is contrary to section 66 of the Act.
At the commencement of the hearing into the complaint, the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, Local 181 appeared before the Board in the person of its Secretary/Treasurer, Victor Dimarco. It was common ground that this trade union holds the collective bargaining rights for the employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit described in a certificate issued by the Board on June 26, 1986 and that there is presently no collective agreement between the respondent employer and the Union. Mr. Dimarco advised the Board that he appeared on behalf of the union to request that the Board grant it status as a party to this proceeding. He further requested that, if the Board granted status to the union, the matter be adjourned in order to permit the union to retain counsel and prepare its case. The respondent objected to both the addition of the union as a party to the proceedings and to any adjournment of the matter. For his part, the complainant submitted that the union should be added as a party but that the matter should proceed without any adjournment.
The union offered no reasons for not delivering an intervention or otherwise notifying either the parties or the Board of its desire to participate in this proceeding prior to the morning of the hearing. It appears from the record that the union was sent a copy of this complaint, by the Board, under cover of letter dated August 14, 1986; that it was sent a Notice of Hearing to be held on October 2, 1986 from the Board by letter dated September 3, 1986; and that it was sent a copy of the respondent's reply, again by the Board, by letter dated September 22, 1986. There was no indication given by the union that it either did not receive any of the materials, or that any of them were not received in a timely manner. Nor did the union indicate what its "case" was, or make any suggestion as to how its interests were different from those of the complainant. Nor did it suggest how, if at all, any interests it might have could be affected by the disposition by the Board of this complaint. In short, the union failed to put forward any reason why the Board should exercise its discretion to add it as a party to these proceedings at this late date and accordingly the Board unanimously rejected the union's request that we do so. We did indicate of course that the union was entitled to provide assistance to Mr. Williams and Mr. Dimarco did remain at the hearing and sat with Mr. Williams.
As a result of the Board's ruling in respect of the union's request that it be added as a party, it was unnecessary for us to rule on the request for the adjournment since both parties wished to proceed. However, we do feel constrained to add that the Board will not normally exercise its discretion to grant an adjournment unless all parties consent or there are exceptional extenuating circumstances. A party which had adequate notice of a proceeding does not have a right to an adjournment and is not entitled to insist on one for its convenience. It is for the Board to determine whether or not to adjourn on the basis of the circumstances of the particular case as weighed against the desirability for expeditious proceedings in labour relations matters (see Re Flamboro Downs Holdings Ltd. and Teamsters Local 1879 (1979) 1979 CanLII 1669 (ON HCJ), 24 O.R. (2d) 400, (Ont. Div. Ct.)).
After the Board's ruling the parties advised that there were no other preliminary matters. Both parties then made opening statements and, the onus being on the respondent employer pursuant to section 89(5) of the Act, the employer called its first witness, Lorna Barrett. Early in her testimony counsel for the respondent asked her to identify a document purporting to be an application for employment with the respondent from Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams would not admit that the document was what it purported to be and objected to the introduction of the document into evidence on the basis that it was irrelevant. In order to try to expedite the matter, Mr. Young, counsel for the respondent, placed the document in front of Mr. Williams. The complainant maintained his objection. On hearing further evidence from Mrs. Barrett, the Board ruled that it would admit the document into evidence as Exhibit 2. Mr. Williams then refused to return the document to the respondent or to hand it to the Board. He advised the Board that he took exception to the manner in which counsel had placed the document before him, that it was not relevant to his complaint, and that he was retaining it as "evidence".
After a brief recess, the Board unanimously ruled that the original of the document purporting to be his application for employment with the respondent was material and essential to the Board's considerations and that the Board required the document to be marked as an Exhibit. We directed Mr. Williams to give the document to us. Mr. Williams indicated that he might be prepared to deliver up the document but under protest and that he required a receipt from the Board. The Board took Mr. William's use of the word "protest" to mean that he maintained his objection and on that basis indicated that it would receive the document, mark it as an Exhibit, and note his objection thereto. We advised him that we would not issue a receipt. Mr. Williams agreed to deliver up the document but indicated that he had hidden it away for safe keeping. The Board then adjourned for lunch in order to enable Mr. Williams to retrieve the document.
Upon recommencing, Mr. Williams advised the Board that he had obtained "legal advice" and that he was not prepared to deliver up the document. He stated that the Board had no jurisdiction to either rule the document relevant and admissible, or to order him to deliver it up to the Board. He demanded that the Board order counsel for the respondent to apologize for his actions. He also stated that the Board is responsible for maintaining decorum and that it had failed to do so.
The Labour Relations Board is an administrative tribunal established by the Legislature of this province to regulate labour relations. Subject to the specific provisions of the Labour Relations Act, any other applicable legislation, and the rules of natural justice and fairness, it is the master of its own procedure. Under section 106(1) of the Act, the Board has the exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under the Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any matter before it. The Board is specifically empowered (by section 103(1)(c)) to accept such oral or written evidence as it in its discretion considers proper, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a court of law. There can be no doubt that the Boardhad the jurisdiction, and the obligation, to rule on the relevance and admissibility of the document in question. No party can dictate to the Board what evidence it may or may not hear.
The Board must conduct itself judicially and must maintain decorum in the hearings before it. In this instance, Mr. Williams is being overly sensitive to what he perceives to be a slight towards himself by Mr. Young. In our view, Mr. Young is not guilty of any impropriety. Furthermore, if there has been any breach of decorum, it has been by Mr. Williams as evidenced by his general attitude and demeanour and by his refusal to comply with the Board's rulings and directions. Indeed, his conduct borders on contempt of this Board and its processes. It certainly precludes the Board from proceeding further.
Accordingly, the Board unanimously ruled and advised Mr. Williams that it would not proceed further with the hearing into his complaint until such time as he complied with the Board's direction that he deliver up to us the document in issue. The Board further advised Mr. Williams, that if he failed to comply with the Board's direction within a reasonable time the Board would have to consider how to dispose of the matter.
As Mr. Williams made some further assertions of this panel's lack of jurisdiction and other derogatory comments, the Board adjourned the proceeding.
In the result, the Board reiterates its order that the complainant deliver up to the Board, the original of the document purporting to be his application for employment with the respondent and which is presently in his possession or power. If he does so, by delivering the document to the Board's offices at 400 University Avenue (4th floor), Toronto, by 12:00 o'clock noon on Friday, October 31, 1986, the matter will be relisted for hearing in accordance with the Board's normal procedures. In view of the complainant's conduct and his refusal to recognize the authority of this Board, if Mr. Williams fails to comply with the Board's order, the Board will exercise its authority, under section 89(4) of the Act, to not inquire into the matter further and this complaint will be dismissed.
The decision of Board Member E. G. Theobald will follow.