Bryan Hisko v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local 47
3559-99-U Bryan Hisko, Applicant v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local 47, Responding Party v. Gorlan Mechanical Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair
DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 21, 2000
This is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (“the Act”) alleging a violation of section 74 of the Act.
In correspondence received by the Board on December 8, 2000, but which came to my attention on December 18, 2000, counsel for the responding party (“the union”) requests a brief adjournment of the consultation in this matter scheduled for January 11, 2001. That request is agreed to by counsel for the intervenor, but apparently opposed by counsel for the applicant. Counsel for the intervenor has an unspecified conflict with the January 11 date which he states is “potentially resolvable”.
Counsel for the union points out that the January 11 date was set by the Board without consultation with the parties, following the consent of the union and the intervenor to the applicant’s request for adjournment of the previously scheduled November 14, 2000 consultation date. (The applicant’s request for adjournment was based on an unanticipated development that left the applicant without legal counsel to advance his case.) Counsel for the union is already involved in another Board matter scheduled for January 11, 2001. He offers several February 2001 dates available to him and counsel for the intervenor in substitution of the January 11 date.
It should be pointed out that the responding party’s consent to adjourn the November 14, 2000 date was not premised upon any condition to consult the responding party regarding a new date. In fact, the consent specifically referred to a new date “to be set by the Board”. To the extent counsel for the union relies upon the setting of the new date without consultation as a factor in favour of granting an adjournment, I do not agree.
Having said that I am of the view that this is an appropriate case for adjournment. First, the union and the intervenor have indicated their willingness to have the matter re-scheduled quickly. Second, counsel for the union has raised a serious concern in respect of his conflicting schedule. Third, counsel for the union and for the intervenor previously agreed to accommodate the applicant when he requested his adjournment. In my view, they are deserving of the same consideration.
The request for adjournment of the January 11, 2001 consultation date is granted.
Counsel for the union is directed to contact counsel for the applicant to determine whether he and the applicant are available for any of the dates referred to in counsel for the union’s correspondence of December 8, 2000. If so, counsel for the union is directed to contact the Registrar to determine if the agreed date or dates are available for a consultation. If not, the Registrar is directed to reschedule the matter as quickly as possible, on a date to be set by the Registrar.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board