Ontario Labour Relations Board
2000-99-G International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 6, Applicant v. Marathon-Delco Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and
G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 31, 2000
This is a referral of a grievance to arbitration pursuant to section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
In its decision dated March 22, 2000, the Board (differently constituted) made the following declarations:
The responding party is bound to the collective agreement between the Ontario Provincial conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and the Masonry Industry Employers Counsel [sic] (the Collective Agreement) from August 26, 1999.
The responding party has violated the Collective Agreement by failing to engage subcontractors in contractual relations with the applicant and in failing to hire members of the applicant to perform bargaining unit work at its at [sic] Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital job site, Ouellete Street, Windsor.
At paragraph 20 of that decision, the Board advised the parties to notify the Registrar should they wish a hearing convened to deal with the issue of damages. The applicant made such a request on May 19, 2000 and the Registrar of the Board set this matter down for hearing on June 21, 2000.
The Board is in receipt of correspondence dated May 29, 2000 from counsel for the responding party requesting that the hearing scheduled for June 21, 2000 be adjourned. Counsel for the responding party advises that it has filed an application for judicial review with respect to the Board’s decision dated March 22, 2000, and that this matter should be deferred pending the disposition of the application for judicial review.
The responding party has not claimed it would be prejudiced should the hearing proceed as scheduled. Since labour relations delayed are often denied, the general presumption is that proceedings before the Board should proceed with dispatch, unless the parties agree otherwise. This is recognized in section 133 of the Act which requires that a referral of grievance to arbitration should be processed and heard expeditiously. This means that any party who seeks an adjournment, especially a lengthy one, must establish that there is a good reason to grant one. It could take months if not years for the application for judicial review to be finally disposed of. In the result, we are not satisfied that there is a good reason to adjourn these proceedings as requested by the responding party. In our view, the balance of convenience does not favour the adjournment of this matter as it is preferable to hear the evidence while it is reasonably fresh.
Having considered the responding party’s request for adjournment, the Board is not persuaded that the request should be granted. Such request may, of course, be renewed at the commencement of the hearing on June 21, 2000, at which time the applicant would have a chance to respond, and the hearing panel may make such an order, on terms or otherwise, as it considers appropriate in the circumstances then before it.
This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“John Morgan Lewis”
for the Board