Ontario Labour Relations Board
1971-99-ES Gordon Hall, Applicant v. Intercon Security and Brookfield Management Services Ltd. and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 32005572
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: No one appearing on behalf of the applicant; Hugh Dyer, Ray Harsant, Dio De Brito and Emanuel Jech appearing on behalf of Intercon; Liz Graber and Phil Longton appearing on behalf of Brookfield; Karima Chatur appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Labour.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 22, 2000
1This is an employee request under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E-14, as amended, (“the Act”) for review of the refusal of an employment standards officer to issue an Order to Pay in respect of the applicant’s claim for termination pay.
2The hearing in this matter was scheduled for June 15, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.. At approximately 7:20 a.m. of the same day a telephone message on the voice mail of the Labour Relations Officer assigned to this file, was left by an individual identifying himself as the applicant. The caller advised that he had just been told of the unavailability, due to illness, of the applicant’s “star witness”. The caller observed that without the testimony of this witness, he had no case to present, and that therefore the hearing should be cancelled. He concluded by stating that he was going to report for work.
3The Board stood down until 10:00 a.m.. At 10:00 a.m., the applicant had not arrived, and the Board invited submissions from the responding parties, all of whom were in attendance. Counsel for Intercon Security submitted that the phone message did not appear to be in the form of a request for adjournment, but that if it was such a request, Intercon Security did not consent to adjourn. Counsel suggested that if the applicant wanted an adjournment, the onus was on him to contact the other parties and seek their consent, or come to the hearing and explain his reasons. Moreover, the telephone message did not identify the witness or explain how the absence of the witness prevented the applicant from proceeding. Counsel requested that the matter be dismissed.
4The representatives of the responding party, Brookfield Management Services Ltd, and counsel for the Ministry of Labour concurred with the request to dismiss the application. The Board indicated that a written decision dismissing the application would follow.
5The Board finds that there was no request by the applicant for the adjournment of the scheduled hearing. In the absence of anyone to advance the case of the applicant, the matter should be dismissed.
6The application is dismissed.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board