Ontario Labour Relations Board
3872-99-HS OPSEU, Local 234, Shiela Lanktree, Bob Alexander, Tom Rose, Applicants v. Maplehurst Corrections Centre, Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Tom Rose, Bill Gillies for the applicants; Mark Alchuk for the Ministry of Labour.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 27, 2000
1The appellant filed an appeal under section 61(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, as amended (“the Act”) on March 17, 2000 of the decision of the Inspector dated February 26, 2000.
2This matter was scheduled on June 6, 2000 for a hearing on September 20, 2000.
3On June 30, 2000, the Responding Party, the Ministry of Labour (“the Ministry”) wrote to the Board and requested an adjournment of the hearing because the Inspector would be unable to attend the hearing. The other parties were copied on the correspondence.
4The Board wrote to the parties and indicated that to adjourn the hearing all parties would have to provide consent.
5The Ministry then repeated its request on July 14, 2000 this time in a letter addressed to all of the parties.
6The other Responding Party, the employer, gave its consent to the adjournment on July 24, 2000.
7The hearing proceeded on September 20, 2000 and the Ministry repeated its request for adjournment. The Ministry indicated that the Inspector had been granted a leave of absence and was unavailable and that no other person could be substituted as a witness or as an advisor. The Ministry also took the position that the Employer would be prejudiced if the matter proceeded because it had obviously assumed that the matter was not going to proceed.
8The appellant resisted the adjournment request. It indicated that it had not received any of the above-noted correspondence except for the notice of hearing, that its appeal related to a serious, ongoing health and safety issue and that the matter should proceed.
9The adjournment was granted at the hearing. I decided that the Ministry had taken all reasonable steps to secure an adjournment, that the request itself was reasonable given the circumstances and that both the Ministry and the Employer would be prejudiced should the matter proceed.
10There may be an issue as to the whether notices sent by the Board are being received by the appellant. Accordingly, the following are the new addresses for service for the following representatives of the appellant:
Mr. Tom Rose
3228 Steeles Avenue
Milton, Ontario
L9T 2V3
Mr. Bill Gillies
President of OPSEU Local 234
363 Maplewood Crescent
Milton, Ontario
L9T 2G1
11The hearing in this matter will continue on November 9, 2000 and December 7, 2000. I am seized.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board