0832-98-OH Robin Maher-Vanderplas and Lori Manzara, Applicant v. Parkwood Hospital, Responding Party.
0833-98-U Robin Maher-Vanderplas and Lori Manzara, Applicants v. London and District Service Workers’ Union, Local 220, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Elizabeth Traicus for the responding union; no one appearing for the applicant.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 8, 2000
1These are two applications; one filed under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“the Health and Safety complaint”) and the other filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 claiming a violation of section 74 of that Act (“the section 74 complaint”). There are two applicants on each file. The responding party in the Occupational Health and Safety file is the employer; the responding party in the section 74 complaint is the trade union. The employer did not file an intervention in Board File No. 0833-98-U.
2Counsel for the responding employer advised the Board by letter dated November 25, 1999 that the responding employer and Ms. Maher-Vanderplas requested that the Board discontinue the proceeding in the Health and Safety complaint as between those two parties. Having regard to that agreement, Board File No. 0832-98-OH is hereby terminated as between Ms. Maher-Vanderplas and the responding employer.
3Prior to the hearing in this matter, the Board received correspondence from counsel for one of the applicants, Ms. Manzara requesting that both Board File Nos. 0833-98-U and 0832-98-OH be adjourned sine die on consent of the parties. Having regard to that correspondence, the Board hereby adjourns both Board File Nos. 0832-98-U and 0833-98-OH with respect only to Ms. Manzara for a period not exceeding one year. Unless within that time either party requests that the Board proceed with the matter, it will be deemed terminated without any further notice to the parties.
4That left one matter to be heard at the date and time scheduled for hearing being Board File No. 0833-98-U with respect to the applicant Ms. Maher-Vanderplas. Ms. Maher-Vanderplas did not attend the hearing. The Board waited beyond the usual 30 minutes and convened the hearing at 10:15 in the absence of the applicant. Counsel for the responding union requests that the Board dismiss the application as the applicant did not attend.
5Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing dated October 14, 1999 provides:
IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY DECIDE THE APPLICATION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY DOCUMENT FILED BY YOU.
6The applicant did not attend the hearing nor did she provide the Board with any reason for her non-attendance. The Board therefore grants the responding union’s request in Board File No. 0833-98-U that this matter be dismissed as against the responding union with respect to the applicant Ms Maher-Vanderplas.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board