Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council and on behalf of its Affiliated Local Unions v. Teperman Wrecking Inc. et al.
File No.: 1172-97-R Date: November 20, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between: Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council and on behalf of its Affiliated Local Unions, Applicant
- and - Teperman Wrecking Inc. and Teperman and Sons (Canada) Limited and Teperman and Sons Inc., Responding Parties.
Before: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1The hearings in this application are presently expected to be completed on November 30, 2000. Steven Teperman, the representative of Teperman and Sons (Canada) Ltd. seeks an adjournment of the hearings scheduled for November 29 and 30 because he is scheduled for significant surgery some time during the week of November 20, 2000 and is not expected to have recovered sufficiently by November 29th to be able to attend at the scheduled hearings.
2This application was filed on July 4, 1997 and had been set down for hearing for February 18 and 19, 1998. The parties agreed to adjourn the first day of hearing and use that day to meet to deal with production issues. The parties agreed on that day to adjourn the next day as well and requested that the Board list the matter for three days of hearing. The Board scheduled four days of hearing for October 21, 22, 28 and 29, 1998. The matter proceeded on October 21, 1998 at which time the Board (differently constituted) received opening statements from counsel, and then recessed until October 22, 1998. The matter did not proceed on that next day due to the illness of one of the Board members. The parties agreed to adjourn the matter and that panel of the Board fixed nine additional days of hearing. That panel was seized with this matter.
3The Vice-Chair of the Board presiding in the matter at that time resigned from the Board in February, 1999, with the result that the Board was required to cancel those previously scheduled hearings and have the matter start again before this panel of the Board. Those hearings commenced before me on August 4, 1999 and continued on August 5, 6, 24, 25, 26, September 14 and 15. The hearing that had been previously scheduled for September 16, 2000 was adjourned. The Board, at the hearing on August 26, fixed five additional days for hearing, March 21, 24, 28, 29 and April 6. The hearing resumed on March 21, 2000. Mr. Teperman sought an adjournment of the hearing on March 24 due to a death in the family. That request was opposed by the applicant. The hearing convened on March 24 at which time the Board, after hearing from the parties, granted the adjournment for that day, and fixed four additional days for the continuation of the hearing, August 14, 15 and November 29 and 30.
4The hearings continued on March 28, 29, April 6, August 14 and 15, 2000. By letter to the Registrar dated November 16, 2000, Mr. Teperman set out the circumstances on which his request for an adjournment is based. He advised that he had had surgery on October 11, 2000, but that the surgery at that time did not completely rectify the medical problem. He states in his letter:
“…I have been informed that I need to return for additional, more complicated surgery that will include the removal of my bladder and possibly associated organs, during the week of November 20 to the 24th. I am only awaiting the exact date that during that time to report to the Hospital. It is expected to take up to three weeks for recovery providing there are no complications or whatever the surgeon discovers during the operation.
Mr. Teperman provided counsel for the applicant with a copy of that letter.
5Counsel for the applicant, by letter to the Board dated November 16, 2000 advises that that the applicant is anxious to complete the hearing and to have its current counsel who has represented it throughout the hearings in this matter continue to represent it until the matter is finished. The difficulty is that counsel for the applicant advises that she may not be available after December 1, 2000 as she is nearing the end of her pregnancy. She also states that she is planning on taking maternity leave from the beginning of January to the end of July 2001. Although she says that the applicant is reluctant to consent, it would consider Mr. Teperman’s request “…if Mr. Teperman provides the Applicant with a letter from his surgeon confirming the date of his surgery, the nature of the surgery and the expected length of time before he will be well enough to participate in a hearing. Upon receipt of that information, the Applicant will advise the Board of its position with respect to the adjournment request.” The applicant also advised that my availability for hearing dates after November 30 would assist the applicant in making a decision.
6The information the applicant wants Mr. Teperman to have his surgeon provide to the applicant is, for the most part, contained in the letter from Mr. Teperman. In the absence of any suggestion from counsel for the applicant that Mr. Teperman is concocting the facts in order to obtain an adjournment, I am prepared to accept what Mr. Teperman asserts in his letter. He will be undergoing serious surgery sometime during the week of November 20, 2000. His expected recovery, barring complications or discovery of something else needing medical treatment, will be about three weeks. It is clear, therefore, that he would not be available to continue with this hearing until the week beginning December 18, 2000 at the earliest. Counsel for the applicant has indicated that she may not be available after December 1 and it is therefore more likely that she will not be available to complete this hearing during that week, even if the Registrar were able to schedule me for two days of hearing at that time.
7Mr. Teperman is the principal of Teperman and Sons (Canada) Ltd. and has played an active role in these proceedings. He will not be able to attend the continuation of the hearing due to medical reasons that require surgery. There is nothing before me to suggest that the surgery is elective and could be postponed. To the contrary, the description provided by Mr. Teperman suggests medically necessary procedures. If Mr. Teperman’s surgeon is available and an operating room and hospital bed are also available during the week of November 20, Mr. Teperman should not be required to wait until after the hearings in this matter are completed before undergoing surgery. It would be unfair and would, in my opinion, be a failure of justice to deny the adjournment he seeks based on the circumstances set out in his letter.
8Therefore, despite the absence of the applicant’s consent, the Board hereby adjourns the hearings of this matter presently scheduled for November 29 and 30, 2000 to dates to be fixed by the Registrar. It is also understandable that the applicant would want its current counsel to complete the hearing. Therefore, it will be up to counsel for the applicant to determine whether the continuation of the hearings of this matter should take place at some point during counsel’s maternity leave or soon after she returns to work after her maternity leave is finished.
9This matter is referred to the Registrar to be listed for two days of hearing.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board