Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between:
3123-98-ES Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Company Ltd., Applicant v. Dale Cowell et al. and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
3389-98-ES Richard Appleton, Applicant v. Canadian Linen Co. Ltd. and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
3402-98-ES Brian Greene, Applicant v. Canadian Linen Co. Ltd. and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
Decision of the Board: August 2, 2000
Decision
1In decisions dated February 10, 2000, March 31, 2000 and May 5, 2000, I directed Canadian Linen & Uniform Service Company Ltd. (“Canadian Linen”) and the Ministry of Labour to deliver and file information and documentation.
2By letter dated July 12, 2000, counsel for Canadian Linen has asked the Board to direct the Ministry to provide further information and particulars:
(i) when in the summer did the officers learn of the existence of the documents referred to in paragraph 26 [“Ministry officers became aware of the existence of these documents in the summer of 1998.”];
(ii) which employees’ cards had been examined at the point referred to in paragraph 26 [“At that point, they had already examined many ‘tach’ cards…”];
(iii) whom did the officers talk to, as referred to in paragraph 31? And whom did the officers observe? [“They observed the activities of the drivers in the loading bays and talked to some of the drivers.”]
Additionally, the Ministry produced for the first time the complaints of Mr. Appleton, Mr. Greene, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Parker, and of Mr. Jesin on behalf of the Teamsters 847 (the complaint since withdrawn twice). The Ministry did not provide and the Employer requests
(i) the anonymous complaint which Ms. Fadalti represented on November 22, 1996 was dated July 23, 1996
(ii) the complaint of Paul Counter, the fifth identified complainant and
(iii) the complaint of William Cuthill
3In addition, counsel has asked for a further 30 days from the receipt of the above information to reply both to the new material and to the rest of the, no doubt, voluminous material provided by the Ministry in June.
4Turning first to the request for particulars, I am not satisfied that it is necessary for the Ministry to detail precisely when in the summer of 1998 it became aware of the documents referred to in its paragraph 26 response, nor is it necessary for the Ministry to detail whose “tach” cards it examined. However, the Ministry is directed to advise counsel for Canadian Linen which drivers it talked to and observed, as set out in paragraph 31.
5Turning to the request for further production, the Ministry is directed to provide the complaints of Paul Counter and William Cuthill and the anonymous complaint. However, at least for now, the Ministry may “black out” any information that would tend to identify the anonymous claimant.
6The Ministry is directed to provide this information to the parties to whom it has provided the earlier information by no later than August 9, 2000.
7I am unwilling to give Canadian Linen 30 days from August 9, 2000 to reply. The hearing in this matter is set for August 23 and 24, 2000, and I do not believe it is necessary to adjourn those dates so that the parties can complete their exchange of information. Canadian Linen is directed to deliver and file its reply by August 17, 2000.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board