Mohan Swaminathan v. Canadian Staff Union
File No.: 3105-99-U Date: June 29, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between: Mohan Swaminathan, Applicant v. Canadian Staff Union, Responding Party v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Intervenor.
Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1Counsel for the responding party (“CSU”) requests an adjournment of the consultation scheduled for July 25, 2000 on two bases. First, she states that the applicant’s failure to commit to attendance at meetings offered by the assigned Labour Relations Officer has contributed to delay in the resolution of the matter. Secondly, she advises that an individual important to CSU’s case will be on vacation on the date of the scheduled consultation. She asks that a meeting of the parties with the Labour Relations Officer be arranged, and that the consultation be scheduled after July 31, 2000.
2The applicant opposes adjournment of the consultation.
3The reasons cited by counsel for CSU are not sufficient to justify an adjournment of the consultation. Attendance at meetings with Labour Relations Officers is desirable, but not compulsory in the absence of a Board order requiring attendance. Moreover, mere inconvenience of the parties or their representatives does not constitute a valid reason for adjournment. Finally, a consultation does not normally require the tendering of viva voce evidence, but at this point it is not clear in what capacity, if any, of the individual cited by CSU might participate in the consultation.
4The request for adjournment is denied. However, in the event that the panel of the Board conducting the consultation deems it necessary to hear evidence, counsel for the CSU may, if necessary (that is, if the individual cited by CSU is to give evidence, but is unavailable to do so), renew her motion to adjourn during the course of the consultation.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board