[1992] OLRB Rep. November 1191
0261-92-G; 0331-92-G; 0459-92-G; 0698-92-G International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105, Applicant v. Ellis-Don Limited, Respondent; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 773, Applicant v. Ellis-Don Limited, Respondent; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 115, Applicant V. Ellis-Don Limited, Respondent; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 120, Applicant V. Ellis-Don Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: G. T. Surdykowski, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. H. Wightman and K. Davies.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 19, 1992
1Further to the Board's September 21, 1992 decision herein, [now reported at [1992] OLRB Rep. Sept. 999], the respondent has requested that these proceedings be adjourned pending the disposition of the application for judicial review of the Board's decision in Ellis-Don Limited, [1992] OLRB Rep. Feb. 147. The parties have made written representations in that respect and the Board is satisfied that the adjournment request can be dealt with on the basis of those representations.
2In essence, the respondent submits that the balance of convenience favours granting its request and that it may suffer substantial and potentially irreparable prejudice if the adjournment it requests is not granted.
3The applicants oppose the respondent's request. They rely on the submissions made at the hearing on June 18, 1992 in response to a similar request by the respondent, and the Board's reasons for denying the respondents request for an adjournment at that time (see paragraphs 6 to 8 of the Board's September 21, 1992 decision herein). The applicants submit that the respondent's request amounts to a request that these proceedings be stayed in circumstances where an application to stay the Board's decision in Ellis-Don Limited, supra was made to and dismissed by the Divisional Court. The applicants dispute the respondent's assertion that the balance of convenience favours an adjournment and submit that the contrary is true because there are collective agreement enforcement remedies which they are seeking in these proceedings as well as damages. The applicants also suggest that one alternative is to proceed and direct payment of any damages awarded into an appropriate interest bearing account in the names of the applicants to be held in escrow by them pending the final disposition of the application for judicial review in Ellis-Don Limited, supra.
4In reply, the respondent states that the applicants' counsel, who is also counsel for the respondent trade union in the judicial review proceedings in Ellis-Don Limited, supra, is partly to blame for the delay in those proceedings because he has filed an appeal of Divisional Courts ruling on a motion in that proceeding. The respondent rejects the applicant's alternative suggestion on the basis that it would require an unprecedented and protracted proceeding. Further, the respondent submits that an adjournment would work no prejudice to the applicants.
5Since labour relations delayed are labour relations defeated and denied, the general presumption is that proceedings before the Board should proceed with dispatch, unless the parties agree otherwise (see paragraph 6 and 7 of Board's September 21, 1992 decision herein). In addition, it is quite clear that the legislative intent is that section 126 applications, which these are, proceed expeditiously. In our view, this means that a respondent who seeks an adjournment, especially a lengthy one, must establish that there is a good reason to grant one, whether it be that the balance for convenience strongly favours an adjournment, or that there is a strong likelihood of a substantial irreparable prejudice to it if the matter proceeds.
6In this case, it is quite clear that it is likely to take years rather than months before the application for judicial review in Ellis-Don Limited, supra is finally disposed of. On the other hand, it is not apparent that the balance of convenience favours an adjournment of these proceedings, or that any prejudice which the respondent may suffer if these proceedings are taken to their conclusion is either substantial or irreparable, particularly in light of the alternative (which is not necessarily the only one) suggested by the applicants with respect to the payment of any damages awarded.
7In the result, we are not satisfied that there is a good reason to adjourn these proceedings as requested by the respondent. In our view, it is best to proceed while the evidence is still reasonably fresh. The respondents request is therefore denied. We wish to make it clear that the question of when and in what manner any damages which may be assessed in any of these matters are to be paid remains to be determined.
8The Registrar is directed to schedule the applications herein for hearing.