3335-98-HS W. McNaught, M. Bertoia and J. Mullins, Worker Committee Members Danforth Joint Health & Safety Committee, Applicants v. Toronto Transit Commission and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
3415-98-HS W. McNaught, Applicant v. Toronto Transit Commission and K. Bender, Inspector, Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
0830-99-HS J. Mullins, W. McNaught and M. Bertoia , Worker Committee Members Danforth Joint Health & Safety Committee, Applicants v. Toronto Transit Commission and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
1050-99-HS W. McNaught, M. Bertoia, J. Mullins and P. McFawn, Applicants v. Toronto Transit Commission and K. Bender, Inspector, Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
1052-99-HS W. McNaught, M. Bertoia, J. Mullins and C. Sweiger, Applicants v. Toronto Transit Commission and K. Bender, Inspector, Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 3, 2000
1I am in receipt of a letter dated March 2, 2000 from Mr. McNaught in respect of Board File Nos. 3335-98-HS and 3415-98-HS. That letter requests that the Board make three orders:
(i) a cease and desist order against the TTC and its supervisors from threatening the applicants in their preparation of these files;
(ii) an order requiring the respondent (I assume the TTC) to provide all filed materials to each applicant and not just the contact person;
(iii) an order requiring the TTC to rescind the letter of termination dated February 25, 2000, terminating Mr. McNaught’s employment with the TTC.
2The letter also requests that the Board impose certain sanctions on the TTC and indicates that these matters will be raised as preliminary matters at the hearing on April 12, 2000. This decision deals with these issues.
3The requests in item (1) and (2) are related. Firstly, there is no obligation on the part of the TTC to provide sufficient copies of its materials to all applicants. That is the purpose of having a contact person named who acts on behalf of the applicants. In no proceeding before the Board is one party required to provide more than one copy of materials to another party. Therefore the request in item 2 is denied.
4That is not to say however that that material cannot be reviewed with other applicants. The means, manner and timing of any such review may be of issue if it occurs in the workplace. The letter alleged to be improper asserts that materials were being distributed for the purpose of intimidating a potential witness. If Mr. McNaught seeks to challenge this correspondence from the TTC, the proper avenue is to file a complaint in the appropriate forum and have the matter addressed. Similarly, to the extent that Mr. McNaught asserts that the same letter of termination be rescinded, the proper avenue is to file a complaint in the appropriate forum. In neither case is it appropriate for the Board to comment on any such avenue, except to note that these matters do not arise as part of Board File Nos. 3335-98-HS or 3415-98-HS or the other health and safety files set for hearing at the same time. As set out in another decision dated March 3, 2000 from this panel, those matters involve inquiring into the refusal of the Inspector to make an Order with respect to the brake pedal on the RTS bus.
5I reject Mr. McNaught’s assertion that sanctions be applied to the TTC (as set out in the letter at paragraph 9). Should it be found in other proceedings that the TTC acted improperly, remedies will flow in that context. I state again, that in determining these health and safety appeals the Board is not interested in assessing the motive of any party. The issue is solely the health and safety of the brake pedal. As noted in the decision also dated March 3, 2000, all of the parties to these appeals are expected to address their minds and evidence to that, and only that, issue beginning on April 12, 2000.
"M. A. Nairn"
for the Board