<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Ontario Labour Relations Board
**1705-00-U** Brenda Currine Perrin, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Staff Union (“OPSSU”), Responding Party, v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Intervenor.
**BEFORE:** Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
**APPEARANCES:** No one appeared on behalf of the applicant; Lisa Triano and Terry Baxter for the responding party.
**DECISION OF THE BOARD;** July 24, 2001
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## Reasons for Decision
[1] This is an application brought pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (the "Act") that the responding party has breached section 74 of the Act.
[2] A hearing was held on July 19, 2001. At the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. There was no indication in the file that the applicant’s Notice of Hearing, sent to the address for service set out in the application, had been returned or that the applicant had requested an adjournment. The hearing did not commence until 10:00 a.m. and still at that time the applicant or a representative had not yet appeared.
[3] The responding party attended the hearing. An oral decision was rendered dismissing the application.
[4] Subsequent to the hearing on the same day but after a decision had been rendered by the Board, notification was received from counsel for the applicant to the effect: “Please be advised that counsel for the applicant is on vacation this week and inadvertently overlooked the scheduling of the Consultation Meeting today in this matter. Please accept his apology for the oversight. Counsel would like to request an adjournment to any of the following dates: August 2, 7, 9, September 4, 6, or 7, 2001”.
[5] The Board has a discretion under the Act as to whether a matter alleging a breach of section 74 of the Act proceeds to hearing. The Board exercised that discretion and dismissed the application prior to any request being received by the Board for an adjournment.
[6] There was nobody at the hearing to speak to an adjournment request. The subsequent letter requesting an adjournment was received by the Board after a decision had been rendered. Such request was thus too late to consider.
[7] It should be pointed out that in any event without the consent of counsel for the responding party it is extremely doubtful that an adjournment would have been granted based on the reasons forwarded by counsel for the applicant.
[8] This decision confers the oral decision given on July19, 2001 dismissing this application. The application is dismissed
Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board
minicounsel