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 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
1050-99-HS W. McNaught, M. Bertoia, J. Mullins and P. McFawn, Applicants v. Toronto Transit Commission and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties
1052-99-HS W. McNaught, M. Bertoia, J. Mullins and C. Sweiger, Applicant v. Toronto Transit Commission and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 4, 2000
By letter dated March 20, 2000 Mr. McNaught seeks reconsideration of the Board’s decision of March 3, 2000 dealing with a request to make various orders against the TTC and to impose sanctions against the TTC.
Mr. McNaught asserts that the TTC has taken the position that he cannot discuss the TTC’s documents with the other applicants in Board File No. 3415-98-HS and that the TTC has interviewed potential witnesses from whom Mr. McNaught has “attempted to obtain feedback in regard to TTC's submissions”. He asserts that these witnesses are fearful for their jobs and that he cannot adequately prepare. Mr. McNaught asserts that any discussions with other applicants have occurred off work time and premises.
In the decision of March 3, 2000 I noted that material filed by the TTC in the case could be reviewed with other applicants. The reference in the decision is to “that” material; a reference to material filed in respect of the issue of the safety of the brake pedal on the RTS bus. Mr. McNaught has not identified which material he is referring to. However, I am aware that the TTC has filed an application (Board File No. 3616-99-U) to have the Board state a case for contempt against Mr. McNaught because he has allegedly disclosed material that was submitted in a different proceeding (Board File No. 3297-99-OH). The merits of that issue will be determined in due course. However I note that the two documents that give rise to the TTC’s concern in Board File No. 3616-99-U are entirely irrelevant to the issues in Board File No. 3415-98-HS. The issue in the appeals is whether the Inspector properly refused to make an Order by concluding that the brake pedal on the RTS bus does not constitute a health and safety hazard. If the extent of the TTC’s concern is an indication that Mr. McNaught cannot discuss its documents to the limited extent of the two documents referred to, there is no impediment to Mr. McNaught’s ability to prepare for the hearing of the health and safety appeals scheduled to convene on April 12, 2000. Apart from that matter of which I am aware, Mr. McNaught has provided no details that would warrant reconsideration of the earlier decision.
The other matter raised by Mr. McNaught is in respect of potential witnesses. Firstly, there is no property in a witness and either party is entitled to attempt to speak to any potential witness. If there is an allegation that the TTC has acted improperly by threatening or intimidating witnesses, that is properly the matter of a separate application requiring full particulars of the nature of the alleged improper conduct.
Finally Mr. McNaught asks that I outline what he may and may not do as representative of the applicants. The Board cannot provide advice on such matters. Mr. McNaught is acting as the representative, as he is entitled to act. These matters do however involve various legal issues, both procedural and substantive and are apparently becoming more complex largely as a result of the mere volume of litigation between these parties.
There is no basis for reconsidering the decision of March 3, 2000. The request is dismissed.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board