FirstOntario Credit Union Ltd. v. Office and Professional Employees’ International Union and Ministry of Labour
Board File Nos.: 0228-00-HS; 0229-00-HS Date: June 28, 2001 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between: FirstOntario Credit Union Ltd., Applicant v. Office and Professional Employees’ International Union and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Before: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1Pursuant to the Board’s decision in these matters dated May 17, 2001 the applicant and the responding party, Ministry of Labour have made their submissions with respect to any outstanding issues. The responding party, Office and Professional Employees’ International Union, has not made any submissions.
2Board File 0229-00-HS is an application for suspension of inspector Pierroz’ orders pending the disposition of the applicant’s appeal of those orders.
3The Ministry in its letter dated May 25, 2001 takes the position that the applicant is in compliance. The letter states in part:
As set out in the Response filed by the Ministry of Labour, dated February 16, 2001, it is the Ministry of Labour’s position that the two orders issued by Inspector Pierroz have been complied with. As such, the issue with respect to the suspension of the Orders is moot and does not require a ruling from the Board.
The Applicant’s submission for a suspension of the orders, is based on the perceived impact of the orders that would require the Applicant to establish a second joint health and safety committee at this location. The relevant field visit report does not include an order pursuant to s.9(2) of the Act which would have mandated the establishment of a second joint health and safety committee. As previously noted in the Ministry of Labour Response, this issue was not specifically addressed by the Ministry of Labour Inspector in the orders under appeal, nor is it the issue that arises from orders under appeal.
4The applicant does not appear to agree with the Ministry’s view of inspector Pierroz’ orders or with the Ministry’s view that the applicant is in compliance with respect to orders No. 1 and No. 2.
5It is the applicant’s position, as the Board understands it, that while the inspector’s order does not expressly require the applicant to create two committees it ignores the effect of the inspector’s order. The applicant asserts the effect of the order implies the requirements of a second committee for the one location.
6The applicant states in part in its letter of May 30, 2001:
“With respect, the effect of an inspector’s Order must be considered. Ignoring the effect of an Order in this case would allow the Ministry of Labour to compel FirstOntario to accept its interpretation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act without any right of appeal. This is not the intent of the appeal provisions in the Act.”
7Since the Ministry has made it clear that it is satisfied that the applicant is in compliance at the present time there is no need to suspend the orders issued by Inspector Pierroz. The application in Board File No. 0229-00-HS is therefore terminated.
8Board File No. 0228-00-HS will proceed in the usual course.
9This matter is referred to the Registrar and the Manager of Field Services.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board