Arnold Margulis v. Delphax Systems
0069-99-OH Arnold Margulis, Applicant v. Delphax Systems, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 30, 2001
Decision
1This is an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act ("the Act").
2By decision dated July 31, 2000 the Board determined that the company violated the Act. The Board assessed "the damages owing to Mr. Margulis as 3 months' pay". The panel of the Board also remained seized were there any difficulties calculating damages owing to Mr. Margulis.
3The parties advised that there were difficulties implementing the decision. By decision dated March 23, 2001 the Board directed the parties to file submissions if they were content to have the issue determined without an oral hearing. The parties have done so.
4The parties agree that $16,250.00 is owing to the applicant. That amount represents 3 months' pay. Where the parties differ is with regard to whether vacation pay and interest are payable by the employer. The employer asserts that the Board is functus because it has determined the amount owing to the applicant (3 months' pay). The employer asserts that the applicant is attempting to re-argue the case.
5The applicant's response is that the Board is not functus because the Board's decision dated July 31, 2000 is clearly not a final decision. The applicant also points out (correctly) that the issue of damages was not fully argued at the hearing into these matters.
6It is clear that the Board has authority to make the orders requested by the applicant. The Board's authority arises out of the fact that it retained jurisdiction to deal with any difficulty calculating damages. Even if that were not the case, and the Board's decision was a final decision, the Board has the authority to reconsider its decision and would do so in this case. Reconsideration is warranted if the decision does not address heads of damages which are properly before the Board.
7A damage award of interest and vacation pay are generally inherent in any decision in which an employee has damages for loss of wages due to the misconduct of an employer. I agree with the applicant that the applicant is entitled to such orders in this case.
8I remain seized of the application if the parties have difficulties implementing the orders made in this decision.
"Brian McLean"
for the Board