Steven B. Dunbar v. Goodyear Canada Inc.
4241-98-OH Steven B. Dunbar, Applicant v. Goodyear Canada Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Steven Boyd Dunbar, Don Wade and Ross Gillett for the applicant; William LeMay, Binla Enns, Frank Canning and James Howell for the responding party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 7, 2000
1This is an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the "Act"). The applicant, Mr. Steven Dunbar, alleges that his employer, Goodyear Canada Inc., breached section 50(1)(d) of the Act when it intimidated and coerced him because he had sought enforcement of the Act and/or its regulations.
2The first day of hearing in this matter was held on October 28, 1999. At that time, the Board heard evidence from a number of the responding party's witnesses. Following consultation with both parties, the Board scheduled the hearing to continue on Wednesday, April 5, 2000 and Thursday, April 6, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in the "Board Room", 2nd Floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. The Board sent a written notice of hearing to the parties to this effect on November 4, 1999.
3The Board reconvened the hearing at 9:30 a.m. on April 5, 2000. At that time, neither the applicant nor a representative of the applicant was in attendance at the hearing. The responding party indicated to the Board that it had no information concerning the applicant's whereabouts or the reason for his failure to attend the hearing. The responding party noted that the applicant was no longer in its employ. After waiting the normal 30 minutes, the Board began the hearing in the applicant's absence. The responding party requested that the Board dismiss the application on the ground that it had been abandoned by the applicant and that no violation of the Act had, in any event, been established on the evidence before the Board.
4The evidence before the Board may be briefly summarized as follows. The applicant had a verbal altercation with a co-worker shortly after he complained to management that she was not following the employer's health and safety policy. The policy in question was designed to reduce repetitive strain injuries. When the co-worker complained to the employer about the applicant's abusive conduct towards her, the employer commenced an investigation. The applicant did not dispute that he had sworn at his co-worker in the course of their argument. Shortly after commencing the investigation, the employer decided not to pursue it further because the applicant's co-worker refused to reduce her complaint to writing.
5Having carefully considered the evidence before it, the Board is unable to conclude that the employer's decision to commence an investigation was, in any way, designed to coerce or intimidate the applicant because he had made a health and safety complaint, as alleged by the applicant. The Board finds, on the evidence before it, that there has been no violation of section 50 of the Act. It would appear that the applicant has, in any event, abandoned the application.
6This application is accordingly hereby dismissed.
"Caroline Rowan"
for the Board