Ontario Labour Relations Board
3099-99-G International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200, Applicant v. Vitrerie Orleans Glass Inc., Vitrerie Orleans, Glass c.o.b. as Orleans Glass Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Gail Misra, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Elizabeth Mitchell and Robert Desjardins for the applicant; Pierre Ranger for the responding party
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 14, 2000
This is a referral of a grievance to arbitration in the construction industry, made pursuant to section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”)
The grievance was filed with the responding party (the “employer” or “Vitrerie”) on December 10, 1999. The letter grievance was written in English by counsel for the applicant (the “union”). As the matter appears not to have been resolved, the union referred the grievance to the Board for arbitration on January 19, 2000. All of the relevant documentation was sent to the employer by the union by priority courier on that same date.
By a letter dated January 20, 2000 the Registrar of the Board advised the parties that a hearing would take place in Toronto on February 2, 2000 regarding this grievance referral. At the end of the Board’s letter it states as follows:
IMPORTANT NOTES
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE WITH, AND RECEIVE AVAILABLE SERVICES FROM, THE BOARD IN EITHER ENGLISH OR FRENCH. …
PLEASE TELL THE BOARD IF YOU REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC SERVICES INCLUDING SERVICES FOR PERSONS WHO ARE HEARING OR VISION IMPAIRED. THE BOARD WILL ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE YOU, BUT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET YOUR SPECIFIC REQUEST(S).
From a review of the Board file it appears that counsel for the responding requested a copy of the Board’s forms in French at around 4:30 p.m. on January 27, 2000. At 4:40 p.m. that same day the forms were sent to counsel as requested. Nonetheless, the Board received the responding party’s “Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate” in English. There was no request made for a hearing to be held in French and all communications between the Board and the responding party continued in English.
At 3:52 p.m. on February 1, 2000, the eve of the hearing, counsel for the responding party wrote to the Board and requested that the hearing be adjourned and that a bilingual hearing be held in Ottawa. The union had not and did not consent to the adjournment. The letter from the responding party was in English. As is the Board’s normal practice, where there is no consent to the adjournment request, the parties must appear before the panel hearing the case ready to proceed with the hearing. It is open to any party to make its adjournment request and argument at that point.
The hearing convened on February 2, 2000 before me. Counsel for the responding party insisted in addressing me in French even though I advised him that I am not a bilingual Vice-Chair. The parties were advised that no bilingual Vice-Chair was available on such short notice and that it was up to the responding party to have filed a timely request for a bilingual hearing. Given the dearth of bilingual Vice-Chairs, the Board is not in a position to provide bilingual panels on the day of hearing without prior notice. A request made on the evening before a hearing is likewise insufficient notice to the Board.
The Board notes that the responding party has failed to file a response by the date that the hearing began. No explanation was provided for this. Once the responding party knew on February 1, 2000 that no adjournment had been granted, it should have come to the hearing with its response. It did not do so. Rule 163 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure is quite clear and states as follows:
A responding party who has filed a Request in compliance with Rules 158 and 159, must also file a response to the application with the Board not later than 9:30 a.m. on the morning of the hearing. Before, or at the same time as, filing its response, a responding party must deliver a copy of the response to the applicant and to any other responding party who has filed a Request.
In order to attempt to ensure that all parties would be properly heard, the Board ultimately decided to adjourn the hearing to a date when the Board can have a bilingual Vice-Chair hear the matter. The Board advised the parties that all hearings of grievance arbitrations are held in Toronto and that the responding party’s request for a hearing in Ottawa is therefore denied.
The Board notes the union’s concern about the prejudice to it as a result of the responding party’s inaction and the resultant adjournment of the hearing. The union had come to the hearing prepared to proceed, its business representative had flown from Ottawa for the hearing, and counsel had been retained to represent the union. The union put the responding party on notice that at the next day of hearing it will be seeking an order for damages it incurred as a result of the responding party’s action on February 2, 2000.
This matter is referred to the Registrar to set a new hearing day before a bilingual Vice-Chair. I am not seized.
“Gail Misra
for the Board