Rudolph’s Specialty Bakeries Ltd. v. Thomas Johnston and Ministry of Labour
3190-99-ES Rudolph’s Specialty Bakeries Ltd., Applicant v. Thomas Johnston and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: John Adamson for the applicant; Tom Johnston on his own behalf; Karen Northey for the Ministry of Labour.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 13, 2000
1This is an application to review the decision of the Employment Standards Officer to issue an order to pay.
2Shortly after being advised of the scheduled hearing date, the applicant wrote to the Board seeking to re-schedule the matter for perhaps as early as the week following the scheduled hearing date.
3A series of correspondence followed which resulted in a number of decisions of the Board (differently constituted) denying the applicant’s request.
4When the matter came on for hearing before me as scheduled on July 6, Mr. Adamson appeared on behalf of the applicant for the sole purpose of renewing the request.
5It appears, as Mr. Adamson advised and as the employer had earlier submitted in writing, that the President of the applicant, who intended to present the case (and it is suggested may be the only person capable of so doing) had a pre-existing business commitment out of the country.
6This matter may have been capable of a more speedy and convenient resolution had the applicant provided more information along with its original request.
7However, in view of the fact that the applicant still indicated its willingness to insure an expeditious resolution of this matter, it appeared to me that the most significant impediment to the granting of the adjournment was the inconvenience caused to the affected employee as a result of his having had to appear before me.
8Based on information conveyed at the hearing, I am satisfied that the employee’s costs in that regard can be set at $300.00.
9In the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am prepared to grant the applicant’s request for adjournment provided that the applicant reimburses the employee for the costs associated with his attendance.
10Thus, if the applicant advises the Board within one week of the date hereof that it has paid $300.00 to the employee, the adjournment will granted. In that case, a new hearing date will be set by the Registrar in consultation with the parties (and, if necessary, with me) to insure that the new date is soon but also convenient to the parties and, in particular, creates as little disruption as possible to Mr. Johnston’s current employment. In the absence of any such indication within the stipulated time, the applicant’s request for adjournment will be deemed to have been dismissed.
11Mr. Adamson was clear in his indication that he was only before me on July 6, 2000 for the purposes of seeking the adjournment. In particular, he acknowledged that he had no evidence to provide or submissions to make as to the merits of the case. In those circumstances, it is clear that had the matter proceeded on the merits on July 6, 2000 the application would have been dismissed.
12In view of the foregoing, if the request for adjournment is deemed to have been dismissed, this application will also be dismissed.
13The applicant is directed to advise the Board in writing within one week of the date hereof (correspondence should be addressed to the Registrar) whether or not it has reimbursed the employee for expenses ($300.00) associated with his attendance before me on July 6, 2000.
“Bram Herlich”
for the Board