Thames Valley District School Board v. Ministry of Labour, 2001 CanLII 2940

Thames Valley District School Board v. Ministry of Labour

Board File Nos.: 1850-01-HS; 1851-01-HS Date: October 15, 2001

Before: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1Board File No. 1850-01-HS is an appeal pursuant to section 61(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0. 1, as amended ("the Act"). It follows the issue of receipt of a letter from Ms. Cynthia Elliot, the Regional Program Advisor of the Ministry, dated September 4, 2001. That letter reads:

September 4, 2001

Mr. Peter Martin, Manager

Human Resource Services

Thames Valley District School Board

1250 Dundas Street

P.O. Box 5888

London, ON N6A 5L2

Re: Terms of Reference for Multi-Workplace JHSC

Dear Mr. Martin:

On review of your file requesting approval for a Multi-Workplace JHSC I notice that we have not received any revisions to the Terms of Reference as requested in our letter to you dated July 25, 2001. Since we have not heard from you regarding this matter we are considering your file on this matter closed on your request for approval based on the Terms of Reference submitted to this office dated March 22, 2001 denied.

This decision could be reconsidered pending the submission of a revised Terms of Reference with respect to monthly workplace inspection.

Yours truly,

Cynthia Elliot

2Board File No. 1851-01-HS is an application to have an order under the Act suspending pending the outcome of the appeal in Board File No. 1850-01-HS.

3A difficulty with these applications is their lack of clarity. It is not obvious what is being complained of, what order has been made by the Ministry which has offended the applicant, what its impact is and what changes the applicant actually seeks. What follows is a narrative of what I gather from the papers filed by the applicant.

4The Ministry and the various teachers' federations and employees' trade unions which might have an interest in the matter have not been provided with copies of the applications. That needs to occur. The applicant is directed to ensure that each of the interested parties receives a copy of the applications. The applicant should provide details to the Registrar of such service. (This ruling differs from what is set out in Rule 9 of Appendix C of the Board's Rules, but it makes sense in this case).

5I gather the following from the applications. The applicant is the entity created by the merger of four former school boards. The application seems to suggest the following background: one of the applicant's predecessors (the Board of Education of the City of London) and the various federations and unions which represented its employees sought to form a multi-workplace Central Joint Health and Safety Committee ("the Committee"). Furthermore, those parties appear to have agreed upon Terms of Reference which were to deal with such matters as the method and frequency of school inspections. Those parties made application to the Minister of Labour for an order approving the establishment of the Committee. On May 8, 1998 approval was granted and an order was issued under section 9(3.1) of the Act. That section reads:

9. (3.1) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the Minister may, by order in writing, permit a constructor or an employer to establish and maintain one joint health and safety committee for more than one workplace or parts thereof, and may, in the order, provide for the compostion, practice and procedure of any committee so established.

6Apparently once the Committee was established, the Terms of Reference became effective. From the applicant's viewpoint, all worked well.

7Upon the merger of the four former school boards, the applicant again made application for approval of a multi-workplace Central Joint Health and Safety Committee and the approval of the original Terms of Reference. This time, though, the application did not meet with success. The letter from Ms. Elliot makes that clear.

8It seems from the applications that the applicant has two problems:

1. It wants the Committee approved so that the original arrangements can be restored. It does not want a series of separate workplace Health and Safety committees.

2. It wants the original Terms of Reference to be approved so that it can continue to conduct workplace inspections in the manner it did previously.

9The applicant points out what it regards as the impact of the non-approval of its proposed Terms of Reference. The impact is threefold:

1. The applicant will be obliged to double the number of workplace inspections. The cost of additional supply teachers will be in the order of $100,000 per annum.

2. The inspection schedule suggested by the Ministry's Health and Safety inspectors will reduce the number of inspections in secondary schools, and this is undesirable.

3. "The Main Committees become unnecessary financially. The loss of these two committees will reduce the effectiveness of Safety Programs. The employee groups will experience a lack of leadership."

I can, unfortunately, not understand how point 3 fits with the other representations made in the applications. The applicant will have to clarify what it means.

10Besides uncertainty as to what the applicant really wants from these applications and how that relief arises from what the Ministry has done, there is another matter that requires consideration. The Board may not have jurisdiction to deal with the applications. It is not clear to me where the Board acquires jurisdiction to review a decision of the Minister not to permit the establishment of a single multi-worksite Health and Safety committee under section 9(3.1) of the Act.

11In the circumstances the applicant is directed to file more detailed, simpler submissions which explain what these applications are really about and what relief is actually sought. The issue of the Board's jurisdiction will also need to be addressed. Those representations should be received by the Board by November 2, 2001. They should be sent also to the Ministry and the federations and trade unions which represent the applicant's employees, along with copies of the applications. Any of those parties may file representations by November 9, 2001.

12Upon receipt of the applicant's further submissions the application for suspension will be considered.

13I remain seized to deal with the representations.

"Christopher J. Albertyn"

for the Board