1584-99-U Teamsters Local Union #230, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Applicant v. Lafarge Canada Inc., Responding Party.
0532-00-U Lafarge Canada Inc., Applicant v. Teamsters Local Union 230, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: N. L. Jesin for Teamsters Local Union #230; J. Liberman and D. Leone for Lafarge Canada Inc.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 5, 2000
Board File No. 1584-99-U is an unfair labour practice complaint filed by the union, Teamsters Local Union 230 alleging that the responding party Lafarge Canada Inc. has violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"). It was filed on August 31, 1999. Board File No. 0532-00-U is an application by Lafarge Canada Inc. under subsection 96(7) to enforce minutes of settlement. It was filed on May 16, 2000.
Board File No. 1584-99-U was scheduled to be heard on June 6, 2000. On May 29, 2000, the Board (differently constituted) decided that Board File No. 0532-00-U would be heard on the same date as Board File No. 1584-99-U.
On Thursday, June 1, 2000, counsel for the union wrote to the Board and sought an adjournment of these matters on the basis that there was a possibility that he could be called as a witness in relation to Board File 0532-00-U. Counsel wrote that there was no other legal counsel available in his law firm with sufficient experience to the handle matter on June 6, 2000.
On Monday, June 5, 2000, the Board conducted a teleconference to hear the parties’ submissions on the union’s request for an adjournment.
Lafarge Canada Inc. objects to the union’s request. It wants to get on with these matters in order to have them resolved in a timely fashion, so that they do not continue to stand in the way of collective negotiations. Counsel for the company argued that the Board decided on May 29, 2000 that both applications are to proceed on June 6, 2000. He stated that the union is, in effect, seeking reconsideration of the May 29th decision. He submitted that the Board should follow its usual practice not to grant adjournments except in unusual circumstances.
Counsel for the union emphasized that there has been a short period of time since the application was filed in Board File No. 0532-00-U and that the decision to “consolidate” was made on May 29, 2000. He reiterated that, within the relevant period of time, his firm is unable to find a sufficiently experienced counsel to represent the union. The only counsel available is a person recently called to the Bar.
At the conclusion of the teleconference, the Board ruled that the hearing of these applications shall be adjourned to a date to be set by the Registrar in consultation with the parties. These are the reasons for the Board’s decision.
Rule 57 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure states:
The Board may adjourn a case if it considers that the adjournment is consistent with the purposes of the relevant Act. The Board may adjourn on such terms as it considers advisable.
- The Board has the discretion to determine whether or not to grant an adjournment. See Re Flamboro Downs Holdings Ltd. and Teamsters Local 1879 (1979), 1979 CanLII 1669 (ON HCJ), 24 O.R. (2d) 400 (Ont. Div. Ct.), where the Court stated:
But a party who has adequate notice of the hearing does not have a right to an adjournment and is not entitled to insist on one for his convenience or the convenience of his representative. It is for the Board to determine whether to adjourn on the basis of the obvious desirability of speedy and expeditious proceedings in labour relations matters, the background of the particular case, the issues involved, the reasons for the request and other like factors.
A party seeking an adjournment has the onus of satisfying the Board that the need for the adjournment outweighs the “obvious desirability of speedy and expeditious proceedings.”
In the instant applications, the union is prepared to see the hearing of its own application delayed although it was filed approximately nine months ago. In contrast, the application filed by Lafarge Canada Inc. is relatively fresh. It was scheduled for June 6, 2000 only because it was (quite properly) consolidated with the union’s application.
There is no evidence that the adjournment request is made for the mere convenience of the union or its legal counsel. The union learned of the application by Lafarge Canada Inc. on or about May 16, 2000 and the Board decided to consolidate these matters as recently as May 29, 2000.
In the Board’s view, counsel for the union did not have sufficient notice to be able to find other counsel to handle these matters. And, while it is important and desirable to have these matters resolved expeditiously, the Board is not satisfied that there is a pressing urgency. The facts differ from those found in the Board’s decision in The Boy’s Home [1992] OLRB Rep. April 409 where an adjournment to seek other counsel was requested because counsel might have been called as a witness. In that case, which was an application for first contract arbitration, the Board refused the adjournment and noted that the requesting party “had sufficient opportunity to retain and instruct other counsel if it had chosen to do so”. The Board also stated that: “The amount of notice must also be balanced against the expedited time frame set out in the legislation for the resolution of these disputes.” (See also Del Equipment Limited [1989] OLRB Rep. Jan. 19 where the Board did grant an adjournment to retain other counsel because the party’s own counsel would become a witness.)
In view of (1) the lack of sufficient time for the union’s legal counsel time to find and instruct other counsel, and (2) the fact that a short delay will not likely substantially prejudice either party, the Board made an oral ruling granting an adjournment to a date to be set by the Registrar in consultation with the parties. In the Board’s view, this is not a “reconsideration” of its decision dated May 29, 2000. Although the union had requested that, if the matters were to be consolidated, they not be heard on June 6, 2000, it had not at that point raised the issue before me, i.e. that legal counsel might be called as a witness and no other counsel was available.
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board