United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 800 v. An Mar Mechanical and Electrical Contractors Ltd.
3193-00-G; 3194-00-R United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 800, Applicant v. An Mar Mechanical and Electrical Contractors Ltd., Technica Group Inc., Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J.G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 27, 2001
1The applicant filed a referral of a grievance for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, as am. (the "Act") (Board File No. 3193-00-G) and an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Act (Board File No. 3194-00-R) for declaratory and other relief. This matter is scheduled for hearing on August 2 and 3, 2001. The Board issued notices of hearing to the parties and their counsel on June 8, 2001. One of the persons to whom notice was sent on that date was Mario Grossi, the principal of Technica Group Inc. ("Technica").
2Counsel for Technica by letter dated July 24, 2001 requested an adjournment of this matter on the grounds that Mario Grossi, who is required to participate in this matter, is being married on July 28, 2001. Counsel submits that Mr. Grossi's participation in the hearing "would be extremely difficult and inconvenient."
3Counsel advises that that applicant has refused to consent to an adjournment. Counsel further submits that Mr. Grossi's will have a large number of family members attending the wedding who have come from Italy and who are visiting for the week following the wedding. He advises that those family members will be returning to Italy on Monday, August 6, 2001. Counsel also explains not having contacted the Board earlier than July 24th after receipt of the notice of hearing dated June 8th "due to intervening vacation schedules and other commitments, we were only able to reach our client and speak directly earlier this week."
4Mr. Grossi and his counsel had notice of the hearing shortly after June 8th. The request for an adjournment was made about one week prior to the scheduled hearing and more than six weeks after the notice was issued. The applicant has not consented to the adjournment and Mr. Grossi, who is being married on Saturday July 28 does not wish to attend the hearing scheduled for the following Thursday and Friday because family members who have come from Italy for the wedding are visiting. While we have some sympathy for Mr. Grossi's situation, the applicant's interests in having this matter proceed must also be considered. A Board hearing may often require parties to change their plans or cause some inconvenience. There is no suggestion that Mr. Grossi is not able to attend the hearing; rather to attend the hearing at the time scheduled will be inconvenient and extremely difficult for him.
5In our view, counsel for Technica has not provided us with any compelling grounds for adjourning this hearing, particularly in view of the late date of the request. Mr. Grossi presumably knew when he received the notice of hearing that he was being married on July 28 and that guests, including family members would likely attend the wedding and continue their visit around the time of the wedding. Had the request for an adjournment been made promptly, the Board might well have been able to reschedule the hearing with minimal delay to the applicant. The Board was advised by the Registrar that if the August 2 and 3 dates were adjourned, the next days available for a hearing would likely be later in the autumn. It is, in our view, simply too late to accede to the request for an adjournment and delay the commencement of the hearing of this matter for several more weeks or even months.
6The request for an adjournment of the hearing on August 2 and 3, 2001 is denied. The hearing shall proceed as scheduled.
7This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
"Harry Freedman"
for the Board