[1991] OLRB Rep. September 1086
2713-90-R Laundry and Linen Drivers and Industrial Workers Union, Teamsters Local 847, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Applicant v. Sealy Upholstery Canada Inc. and/or Price Waterhouse Limited and/or William Stuart Nathanson c.o.b. as Brighton Furniture and/or Nopans Ventures Ltd. and/or 883727 Ontario Inc., Respondents
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. O. Shamanski and E. G. Theobald.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 4, 1991
Labour relations delayed are labour relations denied (Journal Publishing Co. of Ottawa et al. v. Ottawa Newspaper Guild, Local 205, OLRB et al., Mar. 31, 1977, Ontario Court of Appeal, unreported). Delay works unfairness and hardship in labour relations (Re United Head-ware and Biltmore/Stetson (Canada) Inc. (1983) 1983 CanLII 1852 (ON HCJ), 41 O.R. (2d) 287).
It is legitimate for a party affected by a labour relations proceeding to complain of untoward delays in it, but not when it has itself caused or willingly participated in those delays.
This is an application for relief under subsection 1(4) and section 63 of the Labour Relations Act. It first came on for hearing on April 5, 1991. For reasons given in the decision of the same date (subsequently amended April 12, 1991), the Board (differently constituted in part) adjourned the proceeding and wrote that:
To assist in the scheduling of the application, the applicant undertook to collect and advise the Registrar of dates for hearing convenient for all parties. The Registrar should await the advice of the applicant in that respect before scheduling this matter for hearing.
When by mid-June, 1991 nothing had been heard from the parties, the Board (again differently constituted in part) wrote in a decision dated June 21, 1991 as follows:
Having received no communication from any of the parties with respect to this proceeding, the Registrar twice contacted counsel for the applicant. Counsel was to advise the Board of the status of the matter.
To date, the Board has heard nothing from the applicant or any of the other parties, either pursuant to the applicant's undertaking and Board decision as aforesaid, the Registrar's inquiry, or otherwise.
The parties are directed to forthwith advise the Board of the status in this matter. If they fail to do so satisfactorily within twenty-one (21) days of the date hereof, this application will be dismissed.
By letter dated June 28, 1991, the applicant, by its solicitors, wrote to the Board as follows:
We acknowledge receipt of the decision of the Board dated June 21, 1991 with respect to the above matter.
We are aware of the undertaking of the Applicant to collect and advise the Registrar of dates for hearing convenient for all the parties. We are further aware of the telephone calls from the Registrar inquiring as to the status of this matter.
For the information of the Board, since the hearing of this matter in April 5, 1991, we have repeatedly contacted counsel for the various parties involved in these proceedings in an attempt to arrive at mutually agreeable hearing dates. Unfortunately, whether due to the large number of parties involved in these proceedings and their ever shifting schedules or for other reasons, we have been unable to arrange dates acceptable to everyone. The Applicant certainly does not wish this matter to be dismissed and still wishes to pursue its application. Accordingly, in these circumstances, we request that the matter be scheduled for hearing by the Board without the agreement of all the parties since this appears to be impossible to obtain.
The Registrar then scheduled this matter to be heard on September 4, 5, 26, 27 and 30,
By letter dated August 21, 1991, counsel for the respondent William Stuart Nathanson c.o.b. as Brighton Furniture wrote to the Board with respect to the scheduled hearing dates as follows:
With respect to the dates scheduled for the hearing of the above-noted matter, each of the parties consent to adjourn the hearings scheduled for September 4, 5, 26 and 30, 1991. All parties are available on September 27, 1991 as scheduled.
The parties will attempt as amongst themselves to arrange mutually convenient dates for the hearing and advise the Board.
We trust that this is satisfactory and await confirmation of same from the Board.
- By letter dated August 22, 1991, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Board that:
On August 9th last the Board issued a hearing notice setting this matter down for hearing on September 4th, 5th, 26th, 27th and 30th, 1991. After extensive consultation among counsel it now appears that the only mutually convenient date for all parties is September 27, 1991.
Accordingly we wish to advise you that the parties have agreed to adjourn the hearings scheduled for September 4th, 5th, 26th and 30th, 1991.
Should you have any questions with respect to any of the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Registrar cancelled the September 4, 5, 26 and 30th, 1991 hearing dates. Accordingly the matter will proceed on September 27, 1991 only.
At the September 27, 1991 hearing, the parties should be prepared to set further hearing dates, if necessary. Experience shows that where multiple hearing days are required in a case like this one, they are best held in close proximity to each other. The parties should be aware that, as a result of their conduct with respect to the scheduling of this matter, it is unlikely that the Board will have such further hearing dates available prior to March, 1992.