Scenario 9 Flashcards
For over 15 years, Arthur has worked as a machine operator for a unionized auto parts manufacturer in Hamilton. The company prides itself on the safety and efficiency of its factories. One morning, Arthur finds that the specific machine he uses for his job is not working properly. Upon inspection, Arthur notices there are broken components inside the machine. He reports the problem to his supervisor and to his health and safety representative and tells them he will not work with the machine until it is fixed. By noon the next day, the maintenance technician reports that the machine has now been fixed and Arthur can go back to work. However, Arthur does not believe the machine could have been fixed so quickly and he requests a Ministry of Labour (MOL) investigation. While waiting for the MOL investigation, Arthur’s supervisor suggests that he continues working with the machine because the factory has an important production deadline to meet. Arthur refuses and asks to switch to another workstation. Overhearing the discussion between Arthur and his supervisor, another employee offers to switch machines with Arthur and operate the machine Arthur believes is unsafe. Which of the following would protect Arthur from discipline for refusing to work when he first noticed the broken components? a) Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 b) Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations c) Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act
The answer is c. Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act Functional Area: C1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. The scope of this Act concerns facilitating the return of worker to the workplace, the recovery of workers who have been injured at work and providing compensation and benefits. B is incorrect. These regulations apply to matters that occur in federally-regulated workplaces. C is correct. The OHSA protects employees who refuse to work because they believe their safety may be at risk. Reference(s): Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 43, s. 50. Ontario Ministry of Labour: “Rights and Duties: FAQs” (https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/faqs/rights.php).
For over 15 years, Arthur has worked as a machine operator for a unionized auto parts manufacturer in Hamilton. The company prides itself on the safety and efficiency of its factories. One morning, Arthur finds that the specific machine he uses for his job is not working properly. Upon inspection, Arthur notices there are broken components inside the machine. He reports the problem to his supervisor and to his health and safety representative and tells them he will not work with the machine until it is fixed. By noon the next day, the maintenance technician reports that the machine has now been fixed and Arthur can go back to work. However, Arthur does not believe the machine could have been fixed so quickly and he requests a Ministry of Labour (MOL) investigation. While waiting for the MOL investigation, Arthur’s supervisor suggests that he continues working with the machine because the factory has an important production deadline to meet. Arthur refuses and asks to switch to another workstation. Overhearing the discussion between Arthur and his supervisor, another employee offers to switch machines with Arthur and operate the machine Arthur believes is unsafe. Can Arthur continue to refuse working with the machine even after the maintenance technician reports it has been repaired? On what basis? a) Yes, if he believes the machine is still unsafe. b) No. His refusal could be considered insubordination because the necessary repairs were completed. c) Yes, if another employee is willing to operate the machine in his place.
The answer is a. Yes, if he believes the machine is still unsafe. Functional Area: C1 Rationale(s): A is correct. Under the OHSA, Arthur has the right to refuse unsafe work and can continue to exercise his right to do so until a ministry inspector has investigated the work refusal and made a decision. B is incorrect. It would be considered reprisal and against the law if Arthur were disciplined for refusing to work with an unsafe machine. C is incorrect. It is not necessary, because the OHSA protects employees who exercise the right to refuse unsafe work until a ministry inspector investigates and makes a decision. Reference(s): Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 43. Ontario Ministry of Labour: “Part V: Right to Refuse or Stop Work where Health and Safety in Danger,” Guide to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/faqs/rights.php).
For over 15 years, Arthur has worked as a machine operator for a unionized auto parts manufacturer in Hamilton. The company prides itself on the safety and efficiency of its factories. One morning, Arthur finds that the specific machine he uses for his job is not working properly. Upon inspection, Arthur notices there are broken components inside the machine. He reports the problem to his supervisor and to his health and safety representative and tells them he will not work with the machine until it is fixed. By noon the next day, the maintenance technician reports that the machine has now been fixed and Arthur can go back to work. However, Arthur does not believe the machine could have been fixed so quickly and he requests a Ministry of Labour (MOL) investigation. While waiting for the MOL investigation, Arthur’s supervisor suggests that he continues working with the machine because the factory has an important production deadline to meet. Arthur refuses and asks to switch to another workstation. Overhearing the discussion between Arthur and his supervisor, another employee offers to switch machines with Arthur and operate the machine Arthur believes is unsafe. Can the company ask or allow another employee to operate the machine despite the ongoing investigation by the Ministry of Labour? On what basis? a) No, the company cannot allow any employee to operate the machine without approval from the Ministry of Labour. b) Yes, provided the employee agrees and is capable of operating the machine, and the company has reasonable grounds to believe the machine will operate as expected. c) Yes, provided the employee still agrees after being made aware, in the presence of a health and safety representative, of Arthur’s reason for refusing to work.
The answer is c. Yes, provided the employee still agrees after being made aware, in the presence of a health and safety representative, of Arthur’s reason for refusing to work. Functional Area: C2 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. The company is allowed to ask another worker to do the work that was refused while awaiting the results of the ministry investigation into the refusal (called the second stage of the work refusal). B is incorrect. The volunteered worker must be made aware that work with this machine was refused and why, and it must be done in the presence of a joint health and safety committee member who represents workers, a health and safety representative, or a worker representative chosen because of knowledge, experience, and training. C is correct. It is legal in a Stage II refusal of work investigation. Reference(s): Unit 5: Understanding Employment Legislation, Module 6: The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Ontario Ministry of Labour: Procedure for a Work Refusal Safety Guidelines for the Live Performance Industry in Ontario (https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/liveperformance/gl_live_refuse.php). Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 43(11).
For over 15 years, Arthur has worked as a machine operator for a unionized auto parts manufacturer in Hamilton. The company prides itself on the safety and efficiency of its factories. One morning, Arthur finds that the specific machine he uses for his job is not working properly. Upon inspection, Arthur notices there are broken components inside the machine. He reports the problem to his supervisor and to his health and safety representative and tells them he will not work with the machine until it is fixed. By noon the next day, the maintenance technician reports that the machine has now been fixed and Arthur can go back to work. However, Arthur does not believe the machine could have been fixed so quickly and he requests a Ministry of Labour (MOL) investigation. While waiting for the MOL investigation, Arthur’s supervisor suggests that he continues working with the machine because the factory has an important production deadline to meet. Arthur refuses and asks to switch to another workstation. Overhearing the discussion between Arthur and his supervisor, another employee offers to switch machines with Arthur and operate the machine Arthur believes is unsafe. After a lengthy investigation, the ministry inspector determines that Arthur was mistaken and the machine is safe to operate. Because Arthur refused to operate the machine during that time, the factory missed an important production deadline. Arthur’s supervisor recommends Arthur be terminated as a result. What should the company’s HR manager advise? a) Termination would constitute a reprisal and no action can be taken against Arthur. b) Termination would likely be considered a constructive dismissal. c) Termination would not be justified and Arthur should only be subject to progressive discipline.
The answer is a. Termination would constitute a reprisal and no action can be taken against Arthur. Functional Area: C2 Rationale(s): A is correct. Punishing an employee for exercising a right guaranteed by the OHSA could constitute a reprisal. B is incorrect. Constructive dismissal usually refers to a situation in which an employer makes substantial one-sided changes to an employee’s working environment, which prompts them to resign in response. C is incorrect. Arthur was well within his right to refuse working with the machine under the circumstances; therefore, progressive discipline would be considered a reprisal. Reference(s): Unit 5: Understanding Employment Legislation, Module 6: The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 50.
