Archived - Decision: 96-003 CANADA LABOUR CODE PART II OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Archived information
Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Review under section 146 of the Canada Labour Code, Part II,
of a direction issued by a safety officer
Decision No. 96-003
Applicant: N. Yanke Transfer Ltd.
2431 Stanfiel Road
Mississauga, Ont., L4Y 1R6
Mis en cause: Darlene Tunney, Safety Officer
Human Resources Development Canada
Mississauga, Ont.
Before: Bertrand Southière
Regional Safety Officer
Human Resources Development Canada
On February 9, 1995, safety officer Darlene Tunney issued a direction
to N. Yanke Transfer Ltd. of Mississauga, Ontario. The safety officer
had conducted an inquiry at the work place operated by the employer and
as a result, she directed the employer to establish a safety and health
committee in accordance with section 135 of the Canada Labour Code.
The employer appealed the direction on February 10, 1995.
A hearing was scheduled for July 21, 1995, however, on July 19, 1995,
Charlotte Rochon, on behalf of N. Yanke Transfer Ltd., withdrew the
request for revision. As the regional safety officer responsible to
review this direction, I confirm hereby that N. Yanke Transfer Ltd. has
withdrawn its request for review of the direction issued by safety
officer Darlene Tunney on February 9, 1995. This file is closed.
Decision given on February 27, 1996.
Bertrand Southière
Regional Safety Officer
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL SAFETY OFFICER DECISION
Decision No.: 96-003
Applicant: N. Yanke Transfer Ltd.
Mississsauga, Ontario
KEYWORDS:
Safety and health committee
PROVISIONS:
Code: sections 135 and 137
SUMMARY:
A safety officer issued a direction to N. Yanke Transfer Ltd, of
Mississauga, Ontario, to establish a safety and health committee for a
work place situated in Mississauga. This work place had nine office
staff and forty truck drivers who reported to this particular office.
The employer appealed the direction because in his view, only nine
persons worked regularly in this office; the truck drivers' work place
was their ruck.
A hearing was scheduled for July 21, 1995, however, two days before the
hearing, a FAX was received from the company's head office human
resources manager withdrawing the request for revision.