BC work refusal
FEB 02  Overview ... A member refused dangerous work due to an armed and dangerous lookout the morning of February 2, 2006, in Roosville, BC. 

CBSA gave him a warning letter stating a Labour Affairs Officer had investigated a work refusal by this same member in November 2005 and ruled no danger.  As such CBSA “believes that your current actions constitute a ‘continued’ refusal.   

Forget that this is February and the circumstances are completely different than they were nearly three months ago. 

CBSA’s letter went on to state that the member was no longer entitled to protection of the Labour Code and not allowed to refuse dangerous work.  He was ordered back to work and, failing compliance, to go home without pay and face future disciplinary action that could include financial penalty. 

He refused to go back to work, and was told to go home without pay, which he did.   

The Treasury Board/NJC Directive, Volume 1-19, Refusal to Work, is referenced in the Collective Agreement by virtue of Article 7.  NJC Section 19.6.1.b states that prior to an investigation and decision of an HRSDC Labour Affairs Officer on a work refusal, “the department shall not assign any other employee to use or operate the machine or thing or to work in that place pending resolution of the situation.”  Management defied its legal obligation under the Collective Agreement and assigned managers (employees) to work in the member’s place. 

Calls were made from CEUDA National to the HRSDC Regional Office in BC.  Copies of Raven’s letter to HRSDC Ottawa and CBSA’s letter to the member were sent to HRSDC’s BC Regional Office.   

The Labour Code dictates very clearly that CBSA must treat each work refusal as a stand alone case.  It is also absolute that penalties can not be imposed by CBSA on an employee until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.  CEUDA request that HRSDC remind CBSA of these legal requirements, to have CBSA withdraw its letter to the member, and to start an investigation.  HRSDC agreed and made the call. 

The member was called at home by CBSA and told he could stay there with pay until HRSDC’s Labour Affairs Officer arrives to investigate.  He was also advised CBSA was recanting its position that this was a ‘continued’ refusal, he could refuse to work, and he would not lose hours of pay.   

The Labour Canada investigation lasted nearly 4 hours, and a ruling of no danger was rendered.  The Labour Affairs Officer ruled the lookout is a tool that Customs Officer can use to exercise our right to withdraw.  The investigator deemed it safe to work on the basis that is Customs Officers have a picture of an armed and dangerous felon on a lookout, the can able identify that felon from the picture and run or flee to safety.  In this case, the Labour Affairs Officer suggest the member could hide in the port kitchen (with curtains drawn), or even to the US Customs port a few hundred yards south across the border.  Can you believe a Canadian Labour Affairs Officer ruling on a work refusal because of danger telling a Canadian Customs Officer to run to US Customs across the border if he wants to stay alive?