Parties and File
Anna Fox, Applicant v. The Corporation of the Township of Terrace Bay, Responding Party v. Service Employees Union Local 268 affiliated with the S.E.I.U., A.F. of L., C.I.O., and C.L.C., Intervenor.
Before: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board: June 12, 2000
Decision
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging violation of sections 72 and 76.
2By letter dated June 2, 2000, the applicant requests an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for June 20 and 21, 2000 on the ground that her representative is no longer employed by her union and she requires time to find another representative.
3By letter dated June 6, 2000, the responding party opposes the request for an adjournment.
4The Board does not know precisely when the applicant’s former representative ceased to be able to act for her. However, the applicant has had at least since June 2, 2000 to find another representative, and ordinarily this would be considered ample time to find and instruct that person. However, in this case, there are three factors which militate in favour of granting an adjournment. First, the applicant seemingly had no control over the loss of her former representative; there is no suggestion that she dismissed him. Secondly, the community of Terrace Bay is not a large urban centre and there is presumably a limited number of potential representatives reasonably accessible to the applicant and available on the scheduled hearing dates. Thirdly, a considerable number of documents have been filed and any new representative will need a reasonable time to become familiar with the matter. The Board also notes that the application was filed on December 6, 1999 and there have not been prior adjournments.
5It is well-established in the Board’s jurisprudence that the Board will only grant an adjournment on exceptional or compassionate grounds, unless the other parties consent. The responding party may be put to some inconvenience by an adjournment. It has quite properly ordered its affairs around the scheduled dates. However, after weighing the above considerations, along with the importance of the applicant’s right to be represented, the Board has decided to grant the applicant’s request.
6The Registrar is directed to reschedule the hearing of the application to new dates, to be set in consultation with the parties.
7The applicant has also requested that the matter be heard closer to her home community of Terrace Bay. The Board’s policy is that it does not schedule hearings of this type outside Toronto. The request for a closer venue is therefore denied. Attached please find a copy of the Board’s Interim Travel Policy.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board