|
Welcome
to the CEUDA national OSH page
July 2005
Occupational Safety and Health
... CEUDA is
pleased to offer this National Occupational Safety and Health
section, providing members with valuable tools and updates
related to OSH issues. Follow these links for more
information:
T
B P O L I C I E S A N D P U
B L I C A T I O N S
P
S A C O S H S E C T I O N
C
A N A D I A N C E N T E R F O R
O S H
NATIONAL
POLICY HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE
JULY 27-06
Minutes
... Minutes from the June 14, 2006
NPHSC meeting are now available online.
The next meeting is
scheduled for OCT 04/2006.
O
C T O B E R 2 0
0 6 M I N U T E S
P
R E V I O U S M I N U T E S
HEADLINES
HRSDC Rules "Danger" in
NHQ Records Room
SEPT 20-06
Overview
...
A records room employee situated at
the Sir Richard Scott (SRS) building in Ottawa exercised her right
to refuse dangerous work in November 2005. Among numerous hazards
cited was aging and inadequate shelving. The hazards were
referenced on numerous occasions in local Work Place Health and
Safety Committee meetings but as of September 20, 2006, had yet to
be resolved, which is why on this date 9 employees – all working in
the records room - exercised their right to refuse dangerous work
while citing the same reasons that prompted the refusal in November
2005. A Labour Affairs Officer was called in and investigated the
situation, and determined “filing cabinets, including shelving, are
not safe for use and, therefore, constitute a danger to employees
while at work.” CBSA was “Hereby Directed, pursuant to paragraph
145(2) (a) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, to take proper
measures to correct the hazard or condition that constitutes the
danger. “Under separate cover, the LAO advised management that “a
meeting will take place 11:00AM September 22, 2006 with employee and
management representatives and myself to discuss the measures taken
to comply with the … direction.” CEUDA’s 4th NVP, Brother George
Scott, is responsible for OSH at the national level. He wishes to
congratulate these members on behalf of CEUDA. He says, “I was very
concerned when I saw the file room a few months ago, it was
absolutely disgraceful. While it is unfortunate the matter could
not be resolved using the normal process of consultations in local
Work Place Health and Safety Committee meetings, members must be
commended for taking a stand and exercising their rights. The
Labour Code exists to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for all
CEUDA members, and this includes those who work in offices.”
HRSDC Rules "Danger"
at Border in Windsor — Again
AUG 30-06
Overview
... Following receipt of
information from Windsor Police on Aug 24-06 notifying CBSA in
Windsor of a potentially Armed and Dangerous individual who might
attempt a local border crossing, CBSA issued a Lookout notice to
Border Services Officers (BSOs). The notice was initially
communicated as "May be armed and dangerous", "Release and Notify",
based on the police information and following CBSA guidelines.
CBSA later altered the initial Lookout notice to a "Violent"
designation and requiring BSOs to refer the individual to secondary
inspection rather than release the person and notify police.
The information on the individual had not changed and there are no
CBSA guidelines or definitions available for the "Violent" lookout
notice. CBSA's removal of the "Armed and Dangerous" caution
and "Release and Notify" instructions and the addition of
instructions to refer the individual to secondary inspection place
BSOs in Windsor in a situation of danger. CBSA was hereby directed
to protect all employees from the danger immediately.
Caution to all
Intelligence Officers: Armed and Dangerous =
Armed and Dangerous
SEPT
21-06 NO-memo
... as Intelligence Officers, you have an obligation under
Section 126(1) (c) of the Canada Labour Code to take all reasonable
and necessary precautions to ensure the health and safety of the employee,
other employees and any person likely to be affected by the employee's
acts or omissions ...
N
O 4 4 / 0 6
Alert for all BSOs: ICES
lookouts with Violent Cautions likely Armed and Dangerous
SEPT
21-06 NO-memo
... given we know CBSA posts some lookouts with Violent Cautions that
other law enforcement agencies post with Armed and Dangerous Cautions, and
in light of the foregoing, CEUDA urges BSOs to err on the side of
caution; specifically, we strongly encourage BSOs to consider the option
of tactically repositioning whenever dealing with individuals with a
Violent Caution and to proceed to apply the provisions of the Interim
Policy on the Handling of Armed and Dangerous Lookouts which direct
BSOs to release the person and notify police ...
N
O 4 3 / 0 6
HRSDC Rules "Danger" at
Border in Windsor
MAY 22-06
Overview
... A lookout was issued on May 22,
2006, by Customs Intelligence for the Windsor St Clair region
regarding an individual and stated that Border Services Officers
must "Refer subject to Immigration to determine admissibility.
SUBJECT IS THOUGHT TO BE 'MENTALLY UNSTABLE'. Complete
secondary examination for weapons." The individual was AWOL
from U.S. military and was known to be armed. The CBSA
interim policy instructing Officers to release the person up the
road (for their own safety) and notify policy (who are equipped to
deal with someone armed) was not put into effect. CBSA
management was ordered to immediately alter the activity that
constituted the danger. CBSA complied and altered the lookout
immediately!
New Code Regulation:
Hazard Prevention Program
MAR 03-06
Overview
... New regulations under Part II of
the Canada Labour Code, OSH, came into law on Dec 14, 2005,
to require federally regulated employers to develop a
prescribed program for the prevention of accidents and injury, based
on the hazards in that work place. CEUDA urges its members to
ensure their local OSH Committee verify if such a program exists in
their workplace and, if not, to create one, as required by the
Canada Labour Code.
R
E G U L A T I O N
P
A M P H L E T
HRSDC confirms CBSA
acted illegally
MAR 03
Update
... When CEUDA members refused
dangerous work earlier this year, CBSA responded by giving our
members letters saying it considered the new work refusals to be a
continuation of previous refusals that had already been ruled on by
HRSDC as not being dangerous. The letter went on to threaten
imposition of discipline, fines and leave without pay on our
members. HRSDC has since corrected CBSA's actions: each work
refusal must be treated as a new case (translation: there's no such
thing as a continuation), and no sanction can be imposed until all
avenues of recourse are exhausted (translation: it is impossible for
all recourse to have been exhausted at the start of a refusal).
CBSA's unlawful actions
& collective agreement violations, and HRSDC failings
FEB 03
NO-memo
...
Hardly a week
goes by lately without a highly dangerous scenario unfolding at the
border that puts the lives and well being of Border Officers at
risk. That our members work in environments where grievous bodily
harm and even death have been and will be possible is an
understatement at best. It is an absolute shame that CBSA and
Labour Canada have not chosen to exercise their authority with
integrity when our members were faced with such dangers. Work
refusals last week and the completely ineffectual manner in which
CBSA and Labour Canada handled themselves have prompted this
NO-memo.
N O 1 2 / 0 5
 L
A W Y E R R A V E N W R I T E S
H R S D C
H
R S D C D E C I S I O N A P P E A L
F O R M
H
R S D C R E G I O N A L O F F I C E S
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.
C
O M P L E T E S T O R Y
Sarnia work refusal
JAN 27
Overview
...
A Customs Officer
refused to work at 8:00 p.m., based on 2 Armed and Dangerous
lookouts, one for an 18 year old equipped with an M16 machine gun
that outputs 900 rounds or ammunition per minute. The youth was
suspected of being dressed in army fatigues, tried to kidnap a girl,
and of also carrying a side-arm. All other Customs Officers followed
and refused. Management took over operations.
C
O M P L E T E S T O R Y
BC work refusal
JAN 24
Overview
...
Around 1 p.m., staff at Douglas, Pac Highway,
Aldergrove, and Huntington, BC learned of an Armed and Dangerous
lookout. Two persons were wanted for murder in California and were
likely heading towards Canada. Intelligence later confirmed this. By
1:50 p.m., RCMP was on site at Pac Highway, parked behind the
Customs building out of sight to incoming traffic.
C
O M P L E T E S T O R Y
Sarnia work refusal
JAN 17
Overview
... On Jan 15, information
from Port Huron Police tells of a double homicide in Clinton
Township (some 20 miles from the Sarnia Bluewater Bridge). An Armed
& Dangerous Lookout is entered in the Customs database ICES. A work
refusal starts at 11 a.m., based on Lookout. Superintendent
notifies all Officers and all refuse to work. Bluewater Bridge
closes.
C
O M P L E T E S T O R Y
CEUDA writes Minister of
Labour
JAN 16
Letter
...
we cannot underscore
well enough the importance of ensuring your Office seriously pursue
the CBSA’s failure to meet its legal obligation under Part II of the
Canada Labour Code regarding provision of information to Labour
Affairs Officers from HRSDC Labour Programs who were investigating
work refusals by Border Officers.
L
E T T E R
2
0 0 5 H E A D L I N E S
COMPLAINTS
SEC 127.1
Complaints to Supervisors
...
An
innovative internal complaint resolution process is established
in section 127.1 of Part II, of the Canada Labour Code,
by which parties can address and attempt to resolve their
workplace health and safety problems. This internal
occupational health and safety complaint resolution process will
have to be used before other available resources under Part II
of the Code, except for the right to refuse dangerous
work and the right of pregnant or nursing workers to temporarily
withdraw from dangerous work.
C
U R R E N T C O M P L A I N T S &
T H E I R S T A T U S
C
O M P L A I N T P R O C E S S S T E P S
L A B O U R P R O G R A M S C O M P L A
I N T S P A M P H L E T
|
Complaints |
|
127.1
An employee who believes on reasonable
grounds that there has been a contravention of this Part
or that there is likely to be an accident or injury to
health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the
course of employment shall, before exercising any recourse
available under this Part, except the rights conferred by sections 128, 129
and 132, make a complaint to the
employee’s supervisor. |
Cases
JURISPRUDENCE
Complaints and their outcome
... Complaints,
management responses, OSH Committee investigation reports,
recommendations.
T
R A C K I N G R E C E N T C A M P L A I
N T S
WORK
REFUSALS
SEC 128
Refusing Dangerous Work
... The purpose
of Part II of the Canada Labour Code is to protect your
health and safety by preventing accidents and injuries on the
job. One of the basic rights for employees is the right to
refuse work that they believe presents a danger to themselves or
another employee.
R
E F U S A L
P R O C E S S S T E P S
R
E F U S A L T O W O R K R E
G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
L A B O U R P R O G R A M S - R E F
U S A L P A M P H L E T
L A B O U R P R O G R A M S -
L A B O U R C O D E G U I D E L I N E S
(Bomb
Threats,
Definition of Danger,
Inherent Danger,
Multiple Refusals,
Working Alone)
|
Refusing Dangerous Work |
|
128.
(1) Subject to this
section, an employee may refuse to use or operate a
machine or thing, to work in a place or to perform an
activity, if the employee while at work has reasonable
cause to believe that:
-
the use or operation of the machine or
thing constitutes a danger to the employee or to another
employee, or
-
a condition exists in the place that
constitutes a danger to the employee, or
-
the performance of the activity by the
employee constitutes a danger to the employee or to
another employee.
|
|
Definition of danger |
|
122.
(1)
"danger" means any existing or potential hazard
or condition or any current or future activity
that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or
illness to a person exposed to it before the hazard or
condition can be corrected, or the activity altered,
whether or not the injury or illness occurs immediately
after the exposure to the hazard, condition or activity,
and includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is
likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in
damage to the reproductive system |
APPEALS
SUB-SEC 129(7)
& SEC 146
Right to Appeal
... Sub-section
129(7) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, gives
the right to appeal a decision of "no danger" made by a health
and safety officer. Section 146 gives the right to appeal
directions issued by a health and safety officer.
A
B O U T A P P E A L S
M
O R E I N F O F R O M A P P
E A L S C A N A D A
A P P
L I C A T I O N T O A P P E A L
(Send within 10 days of a ruling to Canada Appeals Office on
Occupational Health and Safety, HRSDC, Ottawa, ON K1A 0J2; tel
(819) 953-4773; fax (819) 953-3326; e-mail
cao-ohs-bac-sst@hrdc-drhc.gc.ca.)
|
Appealing |
|
129
(7)
If a health and safety officer decides that
the danger does not exist, the employee is not entitled
under section
128 or this section to continue to refuse to use or
operate the machine or thing, work in that place or
perform that activity, but the employee, or a person
designated by the employee for the purpose, may appeal the
decision in writing to an appeals officer within ten days
after receiving notice of the decision.
146.
An employer, employee or trade
union that feels aggrieved by a direction issued by a
health and safety officer under this Part may appeal the
direction in writing to an appeals officer within thirty
days after the date of the direction being issued or
confirmed in writing. |
|
