1432-99-HS Sifto Canada Inc., Appellant v. Al Thibert and Ministry of Labour; Communications Energy & Paper Workers Union Local 16-0, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 16, 2000
1The Board, by decision dated February 8, 2000 adjourned this appeal under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. O. 1, as amended sine die for up to one year, based on what the Board understood was the parties’ agreement.
2The parties to this proceeding are the appellant, Al Thibert, the inspector who issued the order under appeal, the Ministry of Labour and the Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 16-0 (“Local 16-0”). The Board’s understanding that the parties had agreed to the adjournment was based on a letter from counsel for the appellant dated February 3, 2000. Counsel for the appellant sent Mr. Vance a copy of her February 3rd letter. Mr. Vance did not provide the Board with any comment on that letter prior to the Board issuing its February 8 decision. That letter indicated that at a meeting on January 13, 2000 attended by officials of the appellant, industry officials and officials from the Ministry of Labour, a decision was taken to request that the Board adjourn this appeal sine die pending completion of equivalency studies. That letter goes on to state that at a meeting of the joint health and safety committee at the appellant’s Goderich Mine, the equivalency study was discussed with Jim Vance, the president of Local 16-0 and Mr. Vance advised the appellant that “his position was that he would defer to the Ministry’s expertise in this matter”. Thus, it appeared to the appellant and to the Board, based on the assertions set out in counsel’s letter of February 3, 2000, that as the Ministry of Labour was content to await the outcome of the equivalency study before having this appeal proceed, Local 16-0 was also prepared to do the same, since it was deferring to the Ministry’s expertise.
3Mr. Vance, by letter dated February 25, 2000, expresses “grave concerns” about the Board’s February 8, 2000 decision and suggests that Local 16-0 was unaware that there had been an agreement reached to request an adjournment of this appeal. The Board, differently constituted, by decision dated February 29, 2000, directed the parties to make submissions with respect to the assertions raised by Mr. Vance. Mr. Vance was to file his reply to the submissions made by the other parties no later than March 13, 2000. Both the appellant and counsel for the inspector and Ministry of Labour have filed submissions. Mr. Vance has not filed any reply to those submissions.
4Mr. Vance submits that the Board’s decision of February 8 is “null and void” because Local 16-0 was not a party to the agreement upon which the decision was based. Counsel for the inspector and the Ministry submitted that her clients agreed to the adjournment. Counsel for the inspector and the Ministry states in her submissions:
The Ministry agreed to the adjournment on the understanding that Sifto will be conducting tests over several months in order to determine whether the process that it has in place meets the equivalency provisions under the Mining Regulation. These tests are to be completed by the end of August. The Ministry will be monitoring the company throughout the process to ensure that it complies with its undertaking to complete certain tests within an agreed upon schedule. In the event that Sifto fails to comply with its undertakings the Ministry will take steps to have this matter returned before the Board for adjudication.
There is nothing that Mr. Vance has submitted that contradicts the assertion that Local 16-0 was willing to “defer to the Ministry’s expertise in this matter”. Thus, I am satisfied that the Board’s decision of February 8, 2000 adjourning this appeal was proper. The application by Mr. Vance on behalf of Local 16-0 to reconsider that decision is therefore dismissed. The dismissal of the application for reconsideration is without prejudice to Local 16-0 exercising the rights it has as a party described in paragraph 3 of the Board’s February 8, 2000 decision.
5Counsel for the Ministry and the inspector indicated in her submissions that she understood that the agreement which gave rise to the Board’s February 8 decision adjourning the appeal was conditional on the appeal being “returned before the Board at the request of any party.” Counsel’s understanding of the Board’s February 8, 2000 decision is correct. While the appeal has been adjourned sine die for a period of up to one year, it is open to any party to request the Registrar of the Board to have the appeal listed for hearing. Should such a request be made, any of the other affected parties could move for a further adjournment to allow the completion of the equivalency studies, and the Board would have to determine whether a further adjournment were warranted if the parties did not agree. That matter is not, however, before this panel of the Board. Rather, all that has been determined here is that the application to reconsider the Board’s February 8, 2000 decision is dismissed.
6This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board