Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 1135-99-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 43001105
Between: Alda Pimenta, Applicant v. Dr. M. Boermans, Dr. P. Nickolet, and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Before: Gail Misra, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board: August 22, 2000
1This is an employee request for review of the decision of an Employment Standards Officer.
2A hearing (panel differently constituted) was commenced into this matter on May 17, 2000. As a further hearing day was required to complete the case, the Board consulted with all of the parties as to their respective availability. On the agreement of the parties September 29, 2000 was set and a Notice of Hearing was sent out on May 24, 2000.
3Shortly after notice of the prospective hearing date had been sent to the parties, the applicant requested adjournment of the September 29th date, as she would be out of the country for the month of September. Drs. Boermans and Nickolet oppose the adjournment request because the applicant’s claim has been outstanding for two years and they would like to see the matter resolved. Furthermore, they rely on the fact that the September date was set in consultation with Ms. Pimenta. The Ministry of Labour takes no position, but points out that the hearing date had been set on agreement of all of the parties.
4The Board is of the view that this is an instance in which the adjournment should be granted, subject to certain conditions, because the applicant is going to be out of the country. The applicant advised the Board and the other parties by a letter dated June 7, 2000 that the September date was problematic, and requested an adjournment. However, the responding party employers did not respond to the request until August 12, 2000. This matter has therefore not been dealt with as quickly as it may have been.
5This is an employee appeal, so the employers do not have any monies being held in trust pending the outcome of the proceeding, and are thus not particularly prejudiced by the adjournment.
6However, since the Board is concerned that the applicant had initially agreed to the hearing date, the Board is of the view that the applicant must bear some of the consequences of the adjournment. This matter is referred to the Registrar to set a new hearing date after the end of September 2000. The new date is to be chosen in consultation with the responding parties.
7This panel is not seized on this issue.
“Gail Misra”
for the Board