4153-98-HS W. McNaught, M. Bertoia and J. Mullins, Appellants v. Toronto Transit Commission, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, Ministry of Labour and Inspector Chris Bandara, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 1, 2000
The appellants advised the Board by letter dated February 25, 2000 (which was transmitted to the Board on February 26, 2000 and therefore filed with the Board on February 28, 2000) that despite their request in a letter dated February 11, 2000 to counsel for the Toronto Transit Commission (the “TTC”) and to counsel for the Inspector and Ministry of Labour to meet to deal with the issues described in paragraph 9 of the Board’s February 3, 2000 decision in this matter, counsel for the TTC advised the appellants that he was not available on the suggested dates and counsel for the Ministry and the Inspector did not respond to their February 11 letter. The appellants assert that counsel for the TTC did not propose other suitable dates for a meeting. The appellants request that the Board, as a result of the responding parties’ failure to meet promptly or to even suggest alternative dates for the meeting, strike paragraphs 4 to 10 inclusive and paragraphs 11 (a) to (g) inclusive from the submission filed by the TTC.
In addition, the appellants allege in their February 25th letter that all three of them have been dismissed from their employment with the TTC. The appellants assert that their dismissal is unlawful and a contravention of section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act R. S. O. 1990, c. O. 1 as amended (the “Act”). According to their letter, William McNaught has filed an application under section 50 of the Act (Board File No. 3297-99-OH). The appellants claim that their dismissal is a factor that I should also rely on in granting their request to have the enumerated paragraphs of the TTC’s submissions struck.
Dealing first with the appellants’ alleged dismissal, that is not a matter which has any bearing on the production and particulars issues described in the Board’s February 3rd decision. While I recognize that their dismissal may well make their prosecution of this application more difficult, until the propriety of their dismissal is determined, this panel of the Board is not in a position to, nor should it, comment upon their dismissal or attempt to deal with the consequences, if any, that arise from it. The appellants state that Mr. McNaught has filed an application under section 50 of the Act. It is unclear what actions, if any, the other two appellants have taken as a result of their dismissal. Since Mr. McNaught’s dismissal is before the Board in Board File No.
3297-99-OH, the panel of the Board assigned to hear that matter will be in the best position to determine what remedy, if any, should be given to Mr. McNaught.
As for the appellants’ request to have the Board strike the submissions filed by the TTC, I note that the timetable established in the February 3rd decision was based on the parties first meeting with a Labour Relations Officer who was to be appointed “to meet with the parties for the purpose of assisting them in resolving issues arising from the appellants’ request for particulars and the production of documents and with respect to any other issue in connection with this appeal.” It appears from the file that the Officer appointed pursuant to the Board’s direction has convened a meeting to take place at the Board’s offices on March 23, 2000. While that meeting is being held later than I had anticipated when I issued the February 3rd decision in this matter, there is nothing in the decision which actually directed the parties or the Board’s officer to convene the contemplated meeting within a certain amount of time. Paragraph 10 of that February 3rd decision spells out a specific timetable for dealing with the sorts of requests contained in the appellants’ letter of February 25, 2000. It is clear from that decision that a party’s request for a remedy in respect of any outstanding pre-hearing issues must be raised within 10 working days of the date of the parties’ meeting with a Labour Relations Officer. That decision did not contemplate that such a request would be made before the date of the Officer’s meeting.
Therefore, in view of the Board’s decision dated February 3, 2000 in this matter, the application by the appellants to have the Board strike out paragraphs 4 to 10 inclusive and paragraphs 11 (a) to (g) inclusive of the submission filed by the TTC in this appeal is premature and is therefore dismissed. The dismissal of the appellants’ request is without prejudice to the appellants making a timely request to strike out paragraphs of the TTC’s submissions and to any other relief in respect of pre-hearing issues subsequent to the date of the parties’ meeting with the Labour Relations Officer.
This matter is referred to the Labour Relations Officer assigned to meet with the parties on March 23, 2000.
This panel of the Board remains seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board