3625-99-U United Dairy and Bakery Workers CAW Local 462 of National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada, Applicant v. Natrel Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 20, 2000
1The Board is in receipt of correspondence from counsel for the applicant requesting an adjournment of the scheduled hearing of this matter on December 18 and 19, 2000. Counsel seeks to have the hearing re-scheduled at the earliest opportunity for Wednesday hearing dates because two of the applicant’s key advisors/potential witnesses, both of whom are in the bargaining unit affected by the application, would otherwise be deprived of the opportunity to earn their commissions during the responding party’s busiest sales period. Their usual and only day off is Wednesday.
2The request for adjournment is strenuously opposed by counsel for the responding party.
3The reasons advanced in support of the request for adjournment are not sufficiently compelling to warrant the re-scheduling of previously scheduled consecutive hearing dates. The applicant claims “clear prejudice”, but such prejudice is neither clear nor apparent to the Board. The individuals themselves may be inconvenienced, and possibly suffer some monetary loss as a result of attending the scheduled hearing. It is difficult to understand how that result prejudices the applicant. Furthermore, while it might be preferable to schedule hearing dates on specific days of the week so as to minimize any negative impact to the parties, their counsel and their witnesses, the practical reality is that the Board would not be able to function with any semblance of efficiency if it adopted a policy of absolute accommodation of all interests in scheduling hearings.
4For these reasons, the request for adjournment is denied.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board