1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

U.S. construction companies and manager face fines of nearly $2 million for exposing workers to asbestos

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) has cited a construction company and its manager for asbestos-related violations and imposed fines of almost $2 million.  Safety regulators are increasingly taking asbestos violations very seriously.

OSHA inspectors determined that the company and some of its supervisors told employees to remove asbestos-containing materials during renovation of a school. Many of the employees were temporary foreign workers whose first language was not English. OSHA’s investigation also found that management threatened some workers with termination if they spoke with OSHA inspectors.

Further, OSHA inspectors found that the manager and the companies failed to warn employees of the danger, even though they were aware of the asbestos hazard.  Further, they did not ensure that the workers used appropriate work methods and respirators, and did not train them on the hazards of working around asbestos.

The company and manager had 15 days to appeal to the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

OSHA’s News Release can be accessed here.


U.S. construction companies and manager face fines of nearly $2 million for exposing workers to asbestos

Employee guilty of “reckless” speeding in mine trolley: dismissal upheld

Unsafe operation of equipment is an easy way to get dismissed or charged with Occupational Health and Safety Act – or sometimes even criminal – offences.  A labour arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a mining employee for driving a trolley at excessive speeds in a mine, causing a derailment and significant damage, costing the company more than $100,000.00.

The trolley was used underground to transport ore cars loaded with “muck” ore or waste to “dumps”.  The trolley weighed 20 tonnes.  The arbitrator found that the speed of the trolley was under the employee’s control.  The evidence was that the track was in good condition.  The arbitrator found that the train was traveling “well in excess” of the maximum allowable speed of 12 km/hr when the derailment occurred, and probably at least 19 km/hr.  The 12 km/hr maximum was set by the Mines and Mining Plants regulation under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. 

The employee was therefore guilty of operating the train at excessive speed, which constituted reckless conduct.  The employee had short service. He had other safety-related discipline on his record.  His reckless operation of the train could have caused serious personal injury or death.  He refused to accept responsibility, offer an apology or display remorse.

The arbitrator noted that the “underground mine environment is a dangerous and extremely safety-sensitive one”.  It was appropriate, in the circumstances, to discharge the employee.

Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations v Sudbury Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers’ Union Unifor, Local 598, 2015 CanLII 32018 (ON LA)

Employee guilty of “reckless” speeding in mine trolley: dismissal upheld

“Zero tolerance” policy on drugs in workplace upheld by human rights tribunal where employee did not have “marijuana card”

An employee who smoked marijuana on the job without legal and medical authorization was not discriminated against when dismissed under his employer’s “zero tolerance” policy, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has held.

The employer was a logging contractor.  The employee operated a “button top” machine, which resembled an excavator, used for gripping logs. He had been diagnosed with cancer some years ago and smoked marijuana to, he claimed, manage pain.  He and a coworker shared six to eight joints a day.  They smoked at work only when the foreman was not present.

The employer had a policy of “zero tolerance for drugs on the work site”.  The employer gave the employee a letter stating that “if you can’t stop taking drugs on the work site” and don’t attend at work, then the employee would be considered to have quit.  The Human Rights Tribunal decided that this was effectively a dismissal.

The employer noted Regulation 4.20 of the B.C. Occupational Health and Safety Regulation which provides:

“(1) A person must not enter or remain at any workplace while the person’s ability to work is affected by alcohol, a drug or other substance so as to endanger the person or anyone else.

(2) The employer must not knowingly permit a person to remain at any workplace while the person’s ability to work is affected by alcohol, a drug or other substance so as to endanger the person or anyone else.”

The Human Rights Tribunal stated, “Safety is the purpose of the zero tolerance policy, and this is clearly rationally connected to the performance of the job, namely operating heaving equipment in the logging industry.”  The Tribunal noted, however, that strict application of a zero-tolerance rule, without consideration of accommodation of the employee’s disability (addiction), may offend the Human Rights Code where the employee has a “marijuana card” (Health Canada authorization to possess marijuana) and is legitimately using marijuana for medical purposes.

Here, the employee did not have a prescription, medical document or marijuana card and did not inform the employer that he was using an impairing or potentially impairing substance in the workplace.  It was incumbent upon him to have already obtained legal and medical authorization and to inform his employer that he would be legitimately using marijuana, and only as medically allowed.  He did not do so.

In summary, the Human Rights Code did not require the employer to accommodate the employee by permitting him to smoke marijuana in the workplace without legal and medical authorization.  “It transgressed the bounds of reasonable accommodation and would have amounted to an undue hardship.” The employee’s human rights complaint was therefore dismissed.

French v. Selkin Logging, 2015 BCHRT 101 (CanLII)

“Zero tolerance” policy on drugs in workplace upheld by human rights tribunal where employee did not have “marijuana card”

“Ill-conceived, poorly-executed” job search, “Alberta sojourn” breached Ontario employee’s duty to mitigate damages in OHSA-retaliation case

Even though an employee “won” his safety-retaliation case under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after his employer failed to file a Response, the employee’s damages were reduced because his job search was shoddy.

After initially trying to find a job around his father’s Ontario home, where he could live rent-free, he “decided to abandon Ontario for an unspecified and illusory opportunity in Calgary” which, evidently, did not come through.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board stated:

“In the result, I am of the view that Stringer did not demonstrate that he acted reasonably in his job search by leaving Ontario for Alberta and after his arrival there.  While the responding party bears the onus of establishing a want of mitigation, the Board cannot ignore the approach taken and effort expended by the applicant in determining the period for which he might be compensated in a proceeding such as this.  To put the matter starkly, if a person such as the applicant did nothing at all to attempt to find work and simply argued that the employer was required to prove that by doing nothing the individual had passed up specific opportunities, the Board would, in my view, be justified in concluding that the onus on the employer did not arise and the individual would be restricted to a nominal level of compensation.  So too, where there is evidence of the person’s making some attempt to obtain other employment, but the approach taken was ill‑conceived, poorly executed, or unsupported by a logical factual basis, the Board should hesitate to conclude that the applicant has made reasonable efforts to mitigate and should reflect that concern in its decision with regard to lost wages.  The applicant is not to be held to a standard of perfection, but, as the Board held in Adams v. W.E. Hall & Sons Company, supra, the applicant’s entitlement to compensation is dependent upon his satisfying the Board that he made “reasonable efforts to mitigate [his] damages”.

Although the employee requested 30 weeks’ pay as damages, the OLRB decided that that would compensate him for the period of his “Alberta sojourn”, which would not be appropriate.  In the end, the OLRB decided that he was entitled to 17 weeks’ lost wages.

Stringer v Grand Tappattoo Resort, 2015 CanLII 26124 (ON LRB)

“Ill-conceived, poorly-executed” job search, “Alberta sojourn” breached Ontario employee’s duty to mitigate damages in OHSA-retaliation case

Ontario MOL Releases 2015-16 Safety Inspection Blitz Schedule

The Ontario Ministry of Labour has released its schedule of workplace inspection blitzes for the period from May 2015 to March 2016. The schedule gives employers advance notice of what MOL inspectors will look for when they visit workplaces.

The “province-wide” occupational health and safety blitz schedule is as follows (the MOL has also released a schedule for its “Provincial Initiatives” and “Regional Initiatives”, which can be found on the MOL’s website):


Sector/Business Type


Struck By Hazards  Construction May – June 2015
New and Young Workers  Industrial May – August 2015
Trenching Hazards  Construction July – August 2015
Mobile Equipment Traffic Control Measures  Mining July – August 2015
Material Handling  Industrial September 14 –
October 23, 2015
Heavy Equipment Operation  Construction October –
November 2015
Modular Training  Mining October –
November 2015
Safe Operation of Machinery  Industrial January 18 –
February 26, 2016
Occupational Disease


Mining February –
March 2016


Ontario MOL Releases 2015-16 Safety Inspection Blitz Schedule

Manager was not a “competent person” to conduct harassment / violence investigation under Canada Labour Code: Court

The Federal Court has held that a manager was not a “competent person” to conduct a workplace harassment investigation under the Canada Labour Code because the employee who filed the complaint had not agreed that the manager was an “impartial party”.

In December 2011, an employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency filed a written complaint alleging “miscommunication, favouritism, humiliation, unfair treatment and a lack of respect” on the part of his supervisor.

The CFIA assigned a manager to undertake a “fact-finding” review of the concerns raised in the complaint.  The manager conducted internal investigations and concluded that there were communication issues and unresolved tension, but no evidence of harassment.

The employee contacted a federal Health and Safety Officer, alleging that the manager was not sufficiently impartial to conduct an investigation. The HSO issued a Direction requiring the CFIA to appoint an impartial person to investigate the complaint pursuant to the Canada Labour Code.  The CFIA appealed that direction to an Appeals Officer of the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal of Canada (who sided with the CFIA), and the employee then appealed to the Federal Court.

The court noted that section 20.9 of Part XX to the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations under the Canada Labour Code sets out procedural obligations of an employer if it receives a complaint of “workplace violence”.  The court held that “harassment may constitute workplace violence, depending on the circumstances”.  The court stated that the alleged harassment in this case could constitute “workplace violence” if after a proper investigation by a competent person it is determined that the harassment could reasonably be expected to cause harm or illness to the employee.  (Workplace Violence is defined in that Regulation as, “any action, conduct, threat or gesture of a person towards an employee in their work place that can reasonably be expected to cause harm, injury or illness to that employee.”

The court noted that under the workplace violence provisions of the Regulation, a person is a “competent person” to conduct a workplace violence investigation if he or she is “impartial and is seen by the parties to be impartial” and has the necessary knowledge, training and experience.

In this case, the employee who filed the complaint did not agree that the manager was impartial.  The court stated:

“What the employer did here was have the Regional Director, Mr. Schmidt, not only institute a pre-screening and fact finding exercise to determine the nature of the complaint and attempt to facilitate mediation, but also conduct a full investigation of the complaint, acting as a competent person under section 20.9(3). In his report, Mr. Schmidt mentions ‘investigation’ eight times and refers to his review of the evidence before him. He was not competent to do so, given there was no agreement that he was an impartial party by the employee and therefore had no authority to conduct any investigation, once the allegation of work place violence was unresolved at the pre-screening stage and still a live issue between the parties.”

As such, the manager’s investigation was essentially unusable, and the court referred the matter back to the Appeals Officer for re-determination of the issues in accordance with the court’s decision.

This decision shows the importance of employers – at least federally-regulated employers who are subject to the Canada Labour Code – of strictly complying with the workplace violence and harassment procedures set out in legislation or regulations.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 1066 (CanLII)

Manager was not a “competent person” to conduct harassment / violence investigation under Canada Labour Code: Court

April 1, 2015: New Working at Heights Training Requirements on Construction Projects

Falls from heights are one of the leading causes of critical injuries and fatalities in Ontario workplaces according to the Ministry of Labour. As a result, beginning April 1, 2015, employers in Ontario must ensure that workers on construction projects who are required to use certain methods of fall protection complete an approved Working at Heights training program.

The Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training Regulation (O. Reg 297/13) (see our previous posts here) has been amended to provide for mandatory Working at Heights training. These amendments come into force April 1, 2015.

However, there is a two-year transition period for certain workers: the Working at Heights training requirements do not apply until April 1, 2017 in respect of a worker who has completed training that meets the requirements of the Construction Projects Regulation (section 26.2 of O. Reg. 213/91) before April 1, 2015. If a worker has not been adequately trained in the use of fall protection systems before April 1, 2015, then the training requirements apply as of April 1, 2015.

Who Must be Trained?

The Working at Heights training requirements apply to workers on construction projects who are required under the Construction Projects Regulation to use any of the following methods of fall protection:

  • A travel restraint system;
  • A fall restricting system;
  • A fall arrest system;
  • A safety net;
  • A work belt; or
  • A safety belt.

The Working at Heights training requirements apply in addition to the existing training requirements under the Construction Projects Regulation with respect to fall protection systems. The fall protection systems training under the Construction Projects Regulation requires, among other things, that a worker who may use a fall protection system is adequately trained in its use and given adequate oral and written instructions by a competent person.

Workers who work at heights and use fall protection systems at workplaces not covered by the Construction Projects Regulation do not have to complete the Working at Heights training at this time.

What Will the Training Cover?

The Chief Prevention Officer (CPO) has established Working at Heights training standards for training programs and for training providers.

The Working at Heights Training Program Standard contains the required information that must be included in a CPO-approved training program. Specifically, the Working at Heights training program will consist of two modules:

  • Module 1: Working at Heights Basic Theory – covers foundational elements on how to work safely at heights. It must be at least three hours long.
  • Module 2: Working at Heights Practical – provides more advanced information on fall protection systems and includes hands-on demonstration of equipment and procedures. It must be at least three and a half hours long.

The Working at Heights Training Provider Standard outlines the requirements for training providers seeking approval by the CPO to deliver an approved training program.

What are the Responsibilities of an Employer?

In respect of a worker who may use one of the methods of fall protection listed above, employers are required to ensure the following:

1. workers have successfully completed a Working at Heights training program that is approved by the CPO as meeting the Working at Heights Training Program Standard that applied at the time of the training

2. the training provider is approved by the CPO as meeting the Working at Heights Training Provider Standard that applied at the time of the training

3. the validity period of a worker’s training has not expired

4. a record of the Working at Heights training is maintained and includes the following information:

  • the name of the worker
  • the name of the approved training provider
  • the date on which the approved training was successfully completed
  • the name of the approved training program that was successfully completed

5. the record of training is available to a Ministry of Labour inspector on request

What is Required in a Record of Training and How do Workers Get It?

According to the Ministry of Labour, an approved training provider is required to provide a worker with proof of training upon successful completion of the training program.

The approved training provider must also notify the CPO of a worker’s successful completion of an approved Working at Heights training program. Upon receipt of such notification, the CPO will issue a wallet-sized proof of training card to the worker. A copy of a worker’s proof of training card issued by the CPO is considered a training record.

The Ministry of Labour will keep a secure, centralized database of all workers who successfully completed the training (collected by the CPO under the authority of the OHSA).  Workers and current or potential employers (with the worker’s consent) will be able to access information about a worker’s successful completion of a Working at Heights training program.

For How Long is the Training Valid?

The training is valid for three years from the date of successful completion of the training program. According to the Ministry of Labour’s “Frequently Asked Questions”, once a worker’s training is no longer valid, the worker can take an approved half-day “refresher” training program (which covers the contents of Module 2) to renew the validity of his or her training.

A worker does not need to retake the Working at Heights training if the worker changes employers during the three-year validity period. An employer should request that new employees provide proof of completion upon hiring.

How Can an Employer Find a CPO-Approved Provider?

The Ministry of Labour website lists CPO-approved Working at Heights training providers and programs, as well as the dates on which they were approved. At the time of writing, there are seven CPO-approved providers listed on the website.

If an employer wishes to deliver “in-house” training to its workers, it must seek CPO approval to become a training provider. More information on the provider application can be found here.

What are the Potential Consequences if an Employer does not Comply?

A Ministry of Labour inspector may request that an employer provide copies of records of Working at Heights training for its workers, or a worker provide a copy of his or her CPO-issued proof of training.  If an employer has not complied with the mandatory Working at Heights training requirements, an inspector may take enforcement action, including issuing orders requiring an employer to comply, issuing a stop work order where an imminent hazard exists, or prosecuting an employer under the Provincial Offences Act, where appropriate.

Keep checking www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com for further updates on this topic.

April 1, 2015: New Working at Heights Training Requirements on Construction Projects

Aggravated damages awarded under OHSA for retaliatory firing

An employer has been ordered to pay aggravated damages – in addition to lost wages – after firing an employee in retaliation for raising safety issues.

The employee worked at a hair salon. She suffered an injury at work as a result of unsafe working conditions.  The employer did not take any steps to address the safety issues, nor did it report the injury to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

After the employee filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour, the employer dismissed her. She then filed a safety-reprisal complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The employer did not attend the hearing at the OLRB.

The OLRB found that she was dismissed in retaliation for raising safety concerns. It awarded her lost wages.  Interestingly, the OLRB also awarded her aggravated damages for mental distress, stating that such damages are appropriate where the employer violates a “statutory prohibition”.

The OLRB stated:

“Here the evidence is clear that the circumstances of the Complainant’s dismissal were insensitive, demeaning and humiliating. Mr. Vasiliades callously disregarded her workplace injury, failing to report it to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and pressured her to continue working despite her protestations of the seriousness of her injury. The Complainant was summarily dismissed while on sick leave solely for acting in accordance with the statutory mandate when she reported the hazardous working condition and her injury to the Ministry; she was threatened with arrest were she to set foot on the premises of Pro-Hairlines; she was denied her final paycheque; she was denied the opportunity to collect EI by the Employer’s bogus claim that she was self-employed and its refusal, in total disregard of federal legislation, to issue an ROE to which she was entitled. The Complainant was no longer self-sufficient as a direct result of the Employer’s conduct and suffered loss of self-esteem as she was forced to rely on her father for the basic necessities of food and shelter. Such economic dependence was humiliating for the Complainant.  The psychological and mental distress she suffered was compounded by the lingering physical effects of the serious electrical shock she had sustained due to the hazardous conditions at the workplace for which the Employer was responsible. The Complainant’s sense of loss of dignity and self-respect can be laid directly at the feet of the Employer, acting through Mr. Vasiliades who throughout the dismissal process acted in a manner that was unfair and in bad faith, being both untruthful, misleading and unduly insensitive.”

The OLRB ordered the employer to pay the employee $16,659.00 as damages for lost wages, and $7,500.00 as aggravated damages, for a total of $24,159.00.

Brenda Bastien v 817775 Ontario Limited (Pro-Hairlines), 2014 CanLII 65582 (ON LRB).

Aggravated damages awarded under OHSA for retaliatory firing

No punches thrown, but employee properly dismissed for yelling, swearing and abusive conduct

An employee need not physically assault a co-worker in order to be dismissed for workplace violence, an arbitrator’s decision shows.

The employer had 8 “Golden Rules” of workplace health, safety and environmental standards.  The employee had signed a document that said he understood that failure to comply with the Golden Rules and all other posted plant safety rules “may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination”.

Less than 3 months later, the employee got into an altercation with a co-worker.  There was yelling, swearing and abusive language.  A third employee intervened to separate the two employees when it looked like they were about to hit each other.

The employer’s investigation found that the employee had called the other employee, who was said to have a heavy build, a “fatass” and made a derogatory reference to the other employee’s sexual orientation.  When the third employee tried to break up the altercation, the employee continued to argue with and antagonize the other employee.  Also, both men had removed their hard hats, indicating that they were preparing to hit each other with their fists.

The union argued that this incident of fighting and violence was at the “low end” of the spectrum.  The union noted that there was no physical contact between the fighting employees; “it was all words”.  Also, there were no physical injuries.

The arbitrator disagreed, finding that the employee chose to use words that directly attacked the other employee’s physical appearance and his sexual orientation.  This was “over and above both employees’ use of more traditional, garden-variety, profanities”.  Further, “particularly hurtful comments directed at an individual’s appearance can, even in the absence of physical violence, warrant termination of employment”.  Further, the employee continued to “egg on” the other employee after the third employee tried to break up the altercation.  Lastly, the plant operated around the clock and the employer required all employees, who had been trained on its workplace violence policy, to exercise some degree of self-restraint.  The employee had, instead, tried to escalate to physical violence and likely would have done so if the third employee had not intervened.

The employee had only 15 months of service, had received extensive training on the employer’s workplace violence policy and harassment policy, and had been given a copy of the employer’s “Golden Rules”. He showed very little insight into how his own behaviour was a contributing factor.  He did not see himself as accountable for his own actions.  He did not apologize until the day of the hearing.

The arbitrator upheld the dismissal.

Unifor Local 80-0 v Certainteed Insulation Canada, 2015 CanLII 600 (ON LA)

No punches thrown, but employee properly dismissed for yelling, swearing and abusive conduct

“Who is a supervisor?” Ontario Ministry of Labour releases guideline

Employers often struggle with the question of who is a “supervisor” under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. The answer to that question is obviously important because supervisors have legal duties under the OHSA, violations of which can lead to charges and fines.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour has recently released a “guideline” called, “Who is a Supervisor under the Occupational Health and Safety Act?”

The MOL provides, in that guideline, two lists of “powers and responsibilities that may be exercised or carried out by a supervisor”. The MOL says that the first list includes powers that are “primary indicators of being in a supervisory role”, and the second list “includes responsibilities that would generally be carried out on the job site by a front-line supervisor who interacts directly with workers”:

“1.  Powers that are primary indicators of being in a supervisory role include the power to:

  • hire, fire or discipline,
  • recommend hiring, firing or discipline,
  • promote, demote or transfer,
  • decide a worker’s rate of pay,
  • award bonuses,
  • approve vacation time,
  • grant leaves of absence, or
  • enforce procedures established to protect worker health and safety.

2.  A person with none of the powers listed above could still be a supervisor as defined in the OHSA, if he or she has some of the following responsibilities:

  • determining the tasks to be done, and by whom,
  • directing and monitoring how work is performed,
  • managing available resources such as staff, facilities, equipment, budget,
  • deciding on and arranging for equipment to be used on a job site,
  • deciding the make-up of a work crew,
  • deciding on and scheduling hours of work,
  • dealing directly with workers’ complaints, or
  • directing staff and other resources to address health and safety concerns.”

The MOL guidance goes on to provide examples as well as summaries of relevant court decisions.

Ontario employers, particularly those in safety-sensitive businesses, should familiarize themselves with the guideline, and ensure that all supervisors (1) know that they are “supervisors” under the OHSA, (2) have taken the MOL’s required basic supervisory safety awareness training, (3) are fully aware of their duties under the OHSA, and (4) have received the workplace-specific safety training necessary for them to comply with their duties under the OHSA.

“Who is a supervisor?” Ontario Ministry of Labour releases guideline

Two company directors jailed 25 days after worker dies, no safety training provided

Rarely are senior corporate officials jailed for health and safety offences in Canada.  But recently, two company directors of an importer and retailer of furniture and accessories, were jailed for 25 days after a worker died from a fall.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour says, in its press release, that the worker was moving merchandise at the Brampton workplace of New Mex Canada Inc., using a combination forklift /operator-up platform called an order picker. The order picker had been modified to add a platform supported by the forks that was tack-welded to the operator platform. There was no guardrail around the added platform. The worker was not wearing fall protection.  The worker was pronounced dead after he was found on the floor.  The cause of death was  determined to be blunt force trauma to the head.

The Ministry of Labour states that its investigation found that there had been no health and safety training provided to warehouse workers, and workers said that they were not provided with fall protection equipment.

The two corporate directors were charged with failing as directors of New Mex Canada Inc. to take reasonable care that the corporation complied with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and with Regulation 851 (Industrial Establishments). Both pleaded guilty.   Both received a 25-day jail sentence, to be served on weekends.  Also, both were ordered to take a health and safety course within 60 days.

Further, the employer, New Mex Canada Inc. was fined $250,000.  It pleaded guilty to failing to provide training and supervision to a worker regarding fall protection and/or working from a height, and failing to ensure the safety measures required by law were carried out.

The Ministry of Labour’s press release can be found here.

Two company directors jailed 25 days after worker dies, no safety training provided

Court considers safety, fatigue of replacement workers in granting picketing injunction

A British Columbia judge has considered an employer’s concerns for the safety of replacement workers, in granting an injunction against picketing workers.

The employer and Unifor were in a labour dispute.  Unifor was picketing the employer’s place of business.  In an affidavit submitted on the company’s motion for an injunction, a company manager expressed concern over the safety of the replacement workers due to fatigue:

“In addition to the financial consequences of these increased delays and of greater concern to Cascade are the potential health and safety consequences for CanJet and Trenton personnel. It is very rare that we schedule our production work force for 12 hour days for a significant number of days in a row. The reason this is rare is because of a concern we have for the health and safety of the workers due to fatigue. These workers are repairing complex commercial aircraft and are working with complex tools and equipment. During the course of their duties, they are operating flight controls and doing high-skilled professional work that without due diligence could result in significant damage to the aircraft and/or serious injury to personnel. During the time that the bus is stopped when trying to enter or exit the facility, these personnel cannot simply rest as they are constantly subject to picketers yelling, tapping and scraping their picket signs on the bus and peering through the windows of the bus, sometimes with cameras. I have serious concerns that the number of hours these workers are spending at work and on their way to and from work due to the increased delays in crossing the picket line could lead to exhaustion and a serious work place accident.”

Madam Justice Sharma of the B.C. Supreme Court stated that, “In all the circumstances, I find that there is urgency to this application because of the health and safety concerns of the people working for Cascade.”  She added, “It is clear that Cascade may suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. I am particularly concerned by the escalation of matters since this matter started.”

The employer was therefore entitled to a temporary injunction prohibiting the union members from “blocking, hindering, delaying or obstructing”.

Cascade Aerospace Inc. v. Unifor (Local 114), 2014 BCSC 1461 (CanLII)

Court considers safety, fatigue of replacement workers in granting picketing injunction

Ebola Preparedness for Employers: U.S. OSHA Launches Ebola Web Page

The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has launched an Ebola Web Page for employers providing information on Ebola and how to protect workers.

OSHA states that workers, including healthcare and airline workers, performing tasks involving close contact with symptomatic individuals with Ebola, or who work in environments contaminated or reasonably anticipated to be contaminated with infectious body fluids, are at risk of exposure.

OSHA’s guidance includes information on hazard recognition, medical information, standards, and control and prevention.

OSHA has also issued a “Fact Sheet” called “Cleaning and Decontamination of Ebola on Surfaces: Guidance for Workers and Employers in Non-Healthcare/Non-Laboratory Settings”.

Here in Canada, Public Health Ontario and the Public Health Agency of Canada have also issued materials and guidance regarding Ebola.

Employers – particularly those whose workers may be at greater risk of exposure to Ebola – should prepare a plan for dealing with Ebola, including the logistics of telecommuting arrangements.  Employers’ obligation under health and safety legislation to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of workers, includes an obligation to take reasonable precautions relating to infectious diseases.

Stay tuned to Occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com for further workplace-safety updates relating to Ebola.

Ebola Preparedness for Employers: U.S. OSHA Launches Ebola Web Page

Trucker who punched customer in the mouth was fired for cause

One would think it self-evident that employees who punch a customer’s employee in the face may be dismissed for just cause. But it took an appeal for an employer to win on that issue.

The employee was a truck driver with a small, privately-owned trucking company.   While at a customer’s premises, he got agitated at one of the customer’s employees and punched him in the mouth, knocking out one of his teeth.  The employer dismissed the truck driver and refused to pay his Canada Labour Code termination and severance pay.  The employee then filed a claim for those amounts.

Surprisingly, an Inspector under the Canada Labour Code, who was the first-level adjudicator, decided that the employer did not have just cause for dismissal because the company’s “expectations” had not been clear, there had been insufficient supervision to ensure compliance, and there had been no “clear warnings” as to what would happen if the employee engaged in unacceptable conduct.

The employer appealed to a referee, who disagreed with the Inspector.  The one incident, taken on its own, was just cause for dismissal.  The truck driver showed no remorse for his actions, even at the hearing where he said that the customer’s employee deserved what he got.   The appeal referee found that the truck driver had been evasive and dishonest at the appeal hearing.  The referee held that the punch was unprovoked and constituted just cause for dismissal; this meant that the employee was not entitled to termination pay and severance pay under the Canada Labour Code.

Although the employee had a spotty performance record, including a warning for a previous violent incident at a customer’s premises in which he was alleged to have threatened one of his co-workers with a hunting knife, the appeal referee decided that he did not need to rely on the past incidents, given the gravity of the later assault on the customer.

Our posts on other dismissal-for-violence cases can be viewed by clicking on the “Violence and Harassment” category on our occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com blog.

Warner v Moore Brothers Transport Ltd., 2014 CanLII 54390 (ON LA)

Trucker who punched customer in the mouth was fired for cause

Alberta Employer Liable for Employee’s Negligent Driving of Company Vehicle – Even Though Employer Told Him Not to Drive It

Alberta employers should heed a recent appeal decision in which an employer was held liable for damage caused by an employee while driving a company vehicle – even though he was told not to drive it.

The employee worked for a roofing company. He was working on a residential roof. The employer gave him access to a company truck and trailer which were parked at the site, but only to access supplies and to keep warm. The employer told him not to drive the truck.

The employee disobeyed the instructions and drove the truck and got into an accident.

Section 187(2) of the Alberta Traffic Safety Act makes the owner of a vehicle liable if, at the time of the accident, the driver was in “possession” of the motor vehicle with the consent of the owner.

The appeal court decided that even though the employee did not have permission to drive the truck, he did have permission to use the truck for supplies and to keep warm. Thus, he was “in possession of” the truck, and the employer was liable for any damages caused by him in the accident. As long as the employee had consent to be in possession of the truck, which he did, the employer was liable.

In light of this decision, employers in Alberta – and across Canada – should review their policies on the use and “possession” of company vehicles. Especially where the employee does not have enough assets to satisfy a court judgment, plaintiff lawyers may seek to have the employer also declared liable.

Mustafi v. All-Pitch Roofing Ltd., 2014 ABCA 265 (CanLII)

Alberta Employer Liable for Employee’s Negligent Driving of Company Vehicle – Even Though Employer Told Him Not to Drive It

Despite Having WSIB Coverage, Worker Permitted to Sue “Physically Demonstrative” Executive Officer who “Massaged” her Neck

Physically demonstrative managers beware: your company’s workers compensation coverage does not necessarily protect you from lawsuits by employees.

Even though her employer had Workplace Safety and Insurance Board coverage, an employee was entitled to bring a lawsuit against an executive who “massaged” her neck, allegedly injuring her, Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal has ruled.

However, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act prohibited her from suing her employer for the neck injuries.

The employee alleged, in her court action, that the executive officer had injured her when he manipulated her head and neck without her consent, thereby committing assault and battery. The worker had a prior neck condition affecting her shoulder.

The executive officer was known to be physically demonstrative and had been warned by the employer’s human resources manager not to touch employees or customers unless it was necessary.

The WSIAT decided that because the employee was in the course of her employment at the time of the injury, she could not sue the employer.

However, she would be permitted to sue the executive in the courts if she could prove that he was not acting in an employment-related capacity when he massaged her neck.

The WSIAT decided, on the facts of this case, that in administering the massage, the executive “deviated substantially from his regular activity as an executive officer”. The conduct had nothing to do with his work duties, which was shown by the warning from the human resource manager. As such, he was not acting in an employment-related capacity when he massaged her neck, and the employee was permitted to sue him in the courts.

Decision No. 727/13, 2014 ONWSIAT 1128 (CanLII)

Despite Having WSIB Coverage, Worker Permitted to Sue “Physically Demonstrative” Executive Officer who “Massaged” her Neck

Ontario Government Responds to Early Results of Mine Safety Review

The Ontario government says that it is acting on the early results of the Mining Sector Health, Safety and Prevention Review.

In December 2013, the province asked Ontario’s Chief Prevention Officer to undertake a review of the occupational health and safety issues related to the mining sector, focusing first on underground mines.  The review involves consultation with labour, industry, academic, health and safety experts, as well as members of the public.

According to the Ministry of Labour Press release, Ontario’s response to the preliminary work of the advisory group includes the following:

  • Promoting high visibility apparel to increase the visibility of workers;
  • Developing a mining health database that will track incidents of illness, exposure to a number of carcinogenic substances;
  • Increasing the focus on hazards in the new training standards for joint health and safety committees; and
  • Funding a study to be completed by Laurentian University that will look for ways to reduce loss of feeling in the feet triggered by continuous use of vibrating machinery, which is said to put workers at greater risk for slip and fall injuries, especially on high work platforms.

The government says that it expects the review to conclude in early 2015 with a report and recommendations.

The Ministry of Labour’s press release can be found here.

Ontario Government Responds to Early Results of Mine Safety Review

“Discipline” included “dismissal”: employer did not breach safety-reprisal settlement when it dismissed employee after harassment investigation

An employer that dismissed an employee after a harassment investigation did not breach a previous safety-reprisal settlement with the employee, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has held.  In effect, the employer never promised not to dismiss the employee.

The employee had previously filed a safety-reprisal Application against the employer at the OLRB which was settled. The settlement terms stated that the employee was aware that a harassment complaint had been made against him, that the employer intended to retain an external investigator, and that the investigation “may result in discipline”.

After the harassment investigation was concluded, the employer dismissed the employee. The employee then filed a breach-of-settlement Application with the OLRB claiming that there had been no discussion that “discipline” could include “dismissal”.  He said that, instead, there had been a “common understanding” that some form of discipline may result from the harassment investigation, but that the purpose of the discipline would be to correct any misconduct and ensure adherence to company rules and policies.

The OLRB decided:

“The applicant asserts no facts that would lead the Board to conclude that the parties meant to exclude termination as a possible disciplinary response by Brose.  The applicant does not say, for example, that he received an assurance from Brose in the lead-up to the settlement that Brose would refrain from terminating him, or that the range of any possible disciplinary response would exclude termination.  The plain words of the settlement do not qualify the term ‘discipline’.  And as I have pointed out, Brose’s anti-harassment policy specifically contemplates termination as a possibility where harassment is found to have occurred.”

Interestingly, in coming to its decision that “discipline” included “dismissal”, the OLRB noted that the company’s policy on Harassment in the Workplace stated that employees found to have engaged in harassment “will be subject to discipline up to and including termination” – commonly-used wording in employment policies.  This wording suggested that, at least at this company and at least with respect to harassment, termination was a “subset of dismissal”.

Jeffery v Brose Canada Inc, 2014 CanLII 49707 (ON LRB)

“Discipline” included “dismissal”: employer did not breach safety-reprisal settlement when it dismissed employee after harassment investigation

No damages awarded for unforeseeable workplace assault, but employer ordered to rewrite harassment policy

The fact that an employee had engaged in harassment did not make it foreseeable that he would assault a coworker, a labour arbitrator has held.  However, the company’s harassment policy was deficient and needed to be rewritten.

The decision arose from a union grievance alleging that the employer had not provided an injury-free workplace.  An employee, Kryzanowski, alleged that another employee, Wilson, had struck him in the head from behind with a “rather substantial sized plastic lunch pail”. The union alleged that the company had breached the collective agreement and the Saskatchewan Occupational Health and Safety Act because of its actions or inactions both before and after the incident.

The arbitrator stated that there was no doubt that the assault constituted harassment as defined in the OHSA.  “A serious physical assault, such as this one, is perhaps the most profound single incident of harassment that exists.”  However, according to the arbitrator, the core question was whether the company, through its management personnel and supervisors, knew or should have known that Wilson was a physical threat to other employees and failed to take steps to prevent it.

The arbitrator decided that although Wilson had demonstrated “meanness and bullying” behaviour towards Kryzanowski through numerous disrespectful comments, and the company’s management were sufficiently aware of Wilson’s conduct to know that he was mean-spirited and had anger problems, none of his previous actions were physical alterations and there was no evidence that he was on the verge of physically attacking a fellow employee.  The assault was not foreseeable by the company.

As such, Kryzanowski was not entitled to damages for the assault.  However, the company was ordered to keep Wilson and Kryzanowski on different shifts and direct Wilson to have no contact with Kryzanowski.

Lastly, the arbitrator found that the company’s harassment policy did not comply with the OHSA and regulations in that it was not kept current and did not include specific contents required by the regulations.  The arbitrator ordered the company to “take immediate steps to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act by writing its harassment policy to be compliant with the Act and regulations.”

Shaw Pipe Protection Limited v Construction and General Workers’ Local Union No 180, 2013 CanLII 94439 (SK LA)

No damages awarded for unforeseeable workplace assault, but employer ordered to rewrite harassment policy

MOL safety blitz results show many new businesses non-compliant with basic requirements

The results of a recent Ontario Ministry of Labour safety blitz shows many new small businesses violate basic legal requirements such as posting a copy of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.  And non-compliant employers can expect future visits from MOL inspectors.

The MOL says that between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014, its inspectors visited new small businesses in the industrial sector that had fewer than 20 workers.  The MOL says that it focused on “businesses that had registered with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), but had no prior contact with the ministry.”

Some of the  most common compliance orders issued by MOL inspectors in the blitz were: post a copy of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; prepare a health and safety policy and maintain a program; have a worker health and safety representative; have the health and safety representative conduct monthly inspections; provide “information and instruction” on workplace harassment; and maintain a workplace violence prevention program.

The MOL states that inspectors visited workplaces in the industrial sector including retail establishments, restaurants, wood and metal fabrication establishments, industrial services, wholesalers, automotive manufacturers and vehicle sales and service workplaces.

The MOL’s  enforcement initiative is being repeated in the 2014-2015 fiscal year, with each MOL industrial inspector expected to inspect four to eight small businesses with 50 or fewer workers, which have not been previously registered or inspected by the ministry. The MOL says that this initiative will “increase small business awareness of the workplace parties’ roles and responsibilities under OHSA and its regulations”, “promote awareness and compliance with new mandatory occupational health and safety training for workers and supervisors that came into effect on July 1, 2014”, and “support vulnerable workers by making them aware of their rights under the OHSA and the resources available to help them”.

As we have previously advised, employers should, in particular, ensure that they prepare and post all required postings under the OHSA, since doing so will show the MOL inspector that the employer is aware of its basic obligations and has a safety program in place.  See here for our article on health and safety posting requirements in Ontario.

MOL safety blitz results show many new businesses non-compliant with basic requirements