[1990] OLRB Rep. May 490
0095-89-R; 0249-89-R; 0250-89-R Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Applicant v. 560742 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Canada Framing, Respondent v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 27, Intervener; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local Union 27, Applicant v. Canada Framing and 560742 Ontario Limited and North York Construction Ltd., Respondent; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local Union 27, Applicant v. Canada Framing and 560742 Ontario Limited and North York Construction Ltd., Respondent v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Intervener
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. Gibson and P. V. Grasso.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 9, 1990
Board File No. 0095-89-R is an application for certification in the construction industry in which a pre-hearing representation vote was requested. It was filed on April 13, 1989. Board File Nos. 0249-89-R and 0250-89-R are applications under section 63 and section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act respectively. Both were filed on April 25, 1989.
By decision dated May 3, 1989, the Board (differently constituted in part) directed that the pre-hearing representation vote which had been requested be taken in accordance with the terms set out therein. That vote was held on May 18, 1989.
All three applications were scheduled to be heard together on November 22, 1989. By letter dated and delivered November 17, 1989, counsel for the intervener advised the Board that the parties had agreed to adjourn the November 22, 1989 hearing. Subsequently, and in consultation with the parties, the applications were rescheduled to be heard on April 17, 1990.
Early in the morning of April 17, 1990, counsel for the applicant telephoned the Board to advise that the parties had agreed to adjourn the matter again. Counsel confirmed this by letter dated April 17, 1990 as follows:
This is to advise that the hearing scheduled for April 17, 1990 in the above-noted matter is adjourned, sine die, on consent of the parties.
Subsequently, by letter dated May 3, 1990, counsel apologized for the late notice to the Board of the parties agreement and explained the circumstances which led to it.
We accept counsel's apology and explanation.
We do wish to point out, however, that the Board has limited resources. Naturally, the Board is concerned that these not be squandered. It appears that some counsel (we do not suggest that counsel for the applicant is one of them) and some parties have formed the view that they control the Board's processes. And it has in fact been the Board's general practice to accommodate parties which have agreed to an adjournment. When matters can be adjourned within a reasonable time prior to a scheduled hearing, the Board is often able to schedule another matter in its stead or, in circumstances where a hearing has been scheduled to be held at other than the Board's own premises (for example), to otherwise conserve its resources. Where, however, the Board does not learn of a proposed adjournment within a reasonable time prior to the scheduled date for hearing, it is often not possible to both schedule another matter for that day and give reasonable notice to the parties involved in that other matter. It is, of course, impossible to do so if the adjournment is "requested" the day before or the morning of a scheduled hearing. Last minute adjournments can also cause the Board to incur unnecessary expenses.
Consequently, when adjournments are not requested in a timely manner, the limited resources of the Board, which are financed by the taxpayers of this province, are squandered. That is something which must be avoided, if possible. Consequently, counsel and parties should turn their minds to whether an adjournment will be necessary at the earliest opportunity.
Neither counsel nor parties to proceedings before the Board should delude themselves. They do not control the practices and procedures of the Board. Subject to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the rules of natural justice, and the requirements of fairness, the Board is the master of its own practice and procedure. Parties who fail to request an adjournment, either on consent or otherwise, in a timely manner, risk not being granted an adjournment. Certainly, parties and their counsel should not assume that a request of the kind received by the Board in this proceeding (with respect to the April 17, 1990 hearing date) will be granted as a matter of course.
This proceeding is adjourned sine die for a period not to exceed one year from the date hereof. If no party requests, in writing, that the matter be scheduled for hearing within that one year period, and the matters are not otherwise disposed of by the Board, the applications will be dismissed.