Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
File No.: 2148-00-U Date: December 12, 2000
Applicants: Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Jerry Coelho, Tom Oldham, Kerry Wilson, John Haggis, Luigi Scodellero, and Robert Watson Responding Parties: International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, John T. Flynn and Joe Bognar
Before: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1The Board has received a request from the parties to adjourn today’s hearing. Given the nature of the request, it is unlikely the Board would have refused. However counsel might have had some regard to the last decision about scheduling dated November 30, 2000 in which the Board indicated that the hearing “will not be further adjourned without leave of the Board”.
2I should indicate to parties that I did speak to Ms. Wilson on December 11, 2000. Owing to an absence of staff at the Board, I placed a call myself to Mr. Gottheil’s office indicating the weather was such in Toronto that he ought to consider leaving Ottawa early in order to attend at the hearing scheduled for today. Ms. Wilson returned the call to ensure that the message had been correctly received by her staff. At that time she indicated that she might be seeking an adjournment because of Mr. Gottheil’s health. I stated I would not become involved in a discussion about scheduling with only one counsel.
3The parties have suggested that the matter might be rescheduled for January 16 or 17, 2000. By itself this is not an acceptable proposal. The need for expedition may be felt only by the Board at this point but it is nonetheless real. January 16 and 17 are the first two days scheduled in Board File No. 2532-98-U. The deadline for completion of the hearing in that matter will not be altered. In addition, it would be difficult for the parties to deal with Board File No. 2532-98-U until the result in this application is known. While it may be possible to give a brief, bottom line decision at the end of the consultation, it is unwise to base scheduling decisions on that possibility. I decline to undertake to produce a decision between 5:00 p.m. on January 16 and 6:00 a.m. on January 17.
4The Board can offer the following options to the parties. This matter can be rescheduled for any of Thursday December 14, Friday December 15, or Thursday December 21, 2000. Alternatively the matter may be scheduled for Tuesday January 16, 2001, provided that all counsel are prepared to agree to add to the days already set for the hearing of Board File No. 2532-98-U the dates of Thursday January 25, and Friday January 26, 2001. I am also prepared to hear this on a Saturday or a Sunday before January 16, but only if all counsel agree. I do not, for counsel’s sake, recommend this option. However, there are no other options available to the parties in this matter.
5If the parties can agree on which way to proceed, they are to advise the Board by 12:00 noon on Wednesday, December 13, 2000. If they are not able to agree and they wish to make submissions on the matter, they must do so by the same date and time. This decision is being delivered to counsel only by fax and will be mailed to the other parties by regular mail.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board