[1988] OLRB Rep. September 910
2052-87-U Local 2228 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Complainant v. Nortec Air Conditioning Industries Ltd., Respondent v. Van Hoa Quach on his own behalf and on behalf of a group of employees of Nortec Airconditioning Industries Ltd., Intervener
BEFORE: Judith McCormack, Vice-Chair, and Board Members R. R. Montague and W. H. Wightman.
APPEARANCES: Phillip Hunt for the complainant; Paul Kane and Aaron Rubinoff for the respondent; Walter T. Langley and Van Hoa Quach for a group of employees.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 7, 1988
This is a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act in which the Board found on December 24, 1987 that the respondent had violated section 15 of the Act. At that time, the Board found it appropriate to give the parties an opportunity to come to an agreement with respect to remedy, although it remained seized should the parties be unable to reach agreement. Subsequently, the complainant advised the Board that the parties had been unable to reach agreement on a remedy and asked that the matter be set down for hearing.
At the outset of that hearing, the Board advised the parties that a Labour Relations Officer was available to assist them in their settlement attempts. The parties indicated their willingness to meet with the Officer, and the Board recessed the hearing briefly to enable them to do so. When the hearing resumed, the parties advised the Board that they had been unable to settle their differences with the assistance of the Officer. However, counsel for the respondent also requested that the Board adjourn the hearing because he had been under the impression that the day had been set aside for settlement discussions and that the hearing would not proceed. Counsel also advised the Board that his client was in Montreal and that while he had spoken to him that morning, his client did not wish to give him instructions over the telephone. In addition, he requested supplementary reasons for the Board's decision of December 24, 1987. Both the complainant and a group of employees purporting to intervene were prepared to proceed.
The Board heard the parties' submissions and then ruled orally as follows:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are not prepared to issue supplementary reasons in this matter. We are also not persuaded that in the context of the Board's jurisprudence, there are sufficient grounds for an adjournment. As a result, we will be proceeding today with the hearing of this matter. We are, however, prepared to recess for one hour to allow counsel for the company to consult with his client.
We now provide our reasons.
- For some time the Board and the courts have recognized that "labour relations delayed are labour relations defeated and denied" (see Journal Publishing Company of Ottawa Limited et al v. Ottawa Newspaper Guild Local 285, OLRB et al, unreported, March 31, 1977 (Supreme Court of Ontario)). The Board's policy was described in Nick Masney Hotels Limited, [1968] OLRB Rep. Nov. 833 as follows:
The Board's decision to deny the respondent's request for an adjournment was based on the Board's practice to grant adjournments only on consent of the parties or where the request is based on circumstances which are completely out of the control of the party making the request and where to proceed would seriously prejudice such party i.e., where it is proven that a witness essential to the parties' case is unable to attend because of serious illness.
See also Baycrest Centre of Geriatric Care, [19761 OLRB Rep. Aug. 432; Labour Relations Bureau of Ontario General Contractors Association, [1979] OLRB Rep. Nov. 10