Ontario Labour Relations Board
3024-99-ES Helin Oil Packers Ltd., Applicant v. William Stuart and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 33001345
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Jim Papadopoulos for the applicant; William Stuart on his own behalf and Karen Northey for the Ministry of Labour
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 4, 2000
1This is an application for review pursuant to the Employment Standards Act. An Employment Standards Officer ordered the applicant to pay the claimant one week’s pay in lieu of notice of termination.
2A hearing was scheduled for June 23, 2000. At the commencement of the hearing the applicant’s representative, Mr. Papadopoulos, requested an adjournment to seek legal counsel. He indicated that prior to the hearing the Labour Relations Officer who was appointed to confer with the parties had “walked away from him” and as a result of something the Officer said, he now felt uncertain about his legal rights. The claimant did not consent to the adjournment.
3The Board denied the request for an adjournment.
4The Board has the discretion to adjourn a proceeding. Adjournments are only granted without the consent of the other parties in exceptional circumstances.
5The applicant has had notice of the hearing since March 22, 2000. The application for review was filed on January 7, 2000. The applicant has had ample time to prepare for the hearing and to seek legal advice and representation. It is apparent from the parties’ submissions that this is not a complex case. The central issue is whether or not the applicant offered to recall the claimant within thirteen weeks of his lay-off. The amount of the claim is $416.00.
6The Board explained the role of the Labour Relations Officer to Mr. Papadopoulos. The Board explained that a key role is to endeavour to have the parties resolve their dispute without a hearing, and that the Board is not privy to any settlement discussions. The Board explained that the settlement process is separate from the hearing process.
7It would be antithetical to the role and function of a Labour Relations Officer if confidential efforts to engage in settlement discussions just prior to a hearing were permitted to be used as an opening for a party to say to the Board: “I’ve just spoken with an officer and now I want an adjournment to speak with a legal representative ”. If this were permitted by the Board in anything but the most extraordinary circumstances, it could be used to cause delay to the detriment of the other parties. Parties are required to come to a hearing prepared to proceed. I note that the Manager of Field Services also routinely appoints a Labour Relations Officer to meet with the parties well before the hearing date.
8Having decided not to adjourn, the Board asked the applicant’s representative if he intended to introduce evidence to support the application. Mr. Papadopoulos indicated that he chose not to do so.
9The applicant has the burden of proof in this matter. As no evidence was adduced by the applicant, the Board has decided to dismiss the application.
Disposition
10The order of the Employment Standards Officer is affirmed.
11The application for review is dismissed.
12The Director of Employment Standards Branch is directed to pay out the money held in trust in this matter as follows:
To William Stuart $416.00
To the Government of Ontario
Consolidated Revenue Fund $100.00
Interest accrued on the above amounts
while held in trust shall be paid to the
recipients pro rata.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board