<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Ontario Labour Relations Board
**3489-00-ES** ABB Inc., Applicant v. Ian Young, Harley Warszawski, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
**Employment Practices Branch File No. 40012133**
**BEFORE:** Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
**DECISION OF THE BOARD;** June 1, 2001
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended, (the “Act”) for review of Order to Pay No. 60377 dated January 17, 2001 issued by Employment Standards Officer Harley Warszawski (the “Order”) that was filed on February 26, 2001. Following a meeting of the parties with a Labour Relations Officer, the Registrar listed this matter for hearing which is scheduled to take place on June 22, 2001.
[2] Counsel for the applicant requests an adjournment of the hearing pending the issuance of an Employment Standards Officer’s decision with respect to a claim made against the applicant under the Act by Carlo Castiglione. Counsel submits that a fact finding meeting concerning Mr. Castiglione’s claim took place on May 14, 2001, but no determination has yet been reached by the Employment Standards Officer dealing with that claim. The applicant submits that this application for review of the Order and an application for review of an order to pay that may be issued (but has not yet been issued) in the case of Mr. Castiglione will have common facts and issues. The applicant points out that should an order to pay be issued in Mr. Castiglione’s claim, “it would then be sensible to consolidate the two matters and hear them together so that duplication of evidence and multiple proceedings are avoided.”
[3] Avoiding duplication of evidence and a multiplicity of proceedings is a proper basis for adjourning one matter so that it can be heard together with another related matter. The difficulty I have in this case with the submission of the applicant is that there is not yet a second related proceeding before the Board. Mr. Castiglione’s claim, according to the applicant, is still being investigated and considered by the Employment Standards Officer assigned to that claim. No order to pay has been issued and there may not be an order issued, or if there is an order to pay issued, the applicant and Mr. Castiglione may be able to resolve it. In other words, until there is an application for review filed by the applicant with the Board in relation to an order to pay arising from the claim by Mr. Castiglione, there is no basis to even consider adjourning the hearing of this matter to some future unspecified date. Furthermore, Ian Young, the employee affected in this application is, in my view, entitled to have this matter dealt with expeditiously. If the applicant is successful in having the Order reviewed with the result that Mr. Young’s claim is dismissed, it may have a better chance of resolving the claim made by Mr. Castiglione without having to proceed to a hearing.
[4] In the absence of consent by the other parties to the adjournment requested by the applicant, and as there is no other proceeding before the Board that relates to this application at this time, the request by the applicant for an adjournment of the June 22, 2001 hearing in this matter is dismissed.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board
minicounsel