Scenario N Flashcards
Roger is a machine operator on an assembly line and has been a skilled and diligent employee for the past 4 years. During this time, Roger primarily operated a machine that installs the doors on cars. However, to accommodate personnel changes, Roger has agreed to move to a position where he operates a drilling machine. After his first day in this new position, Roger tells his supervisor that he refuses to continue operating the drilling machine because it is unsafe. Can Roger legally refuse to work with the drilling machine? a) Yes, a worker can refuse unsafe work at any time. b) Yes, Roger can refuse the work because he has given his supervisor his reason for refusing. c) No, Roger must first inform his supervisor of his concerns and then continue to work while the validity of his claims is assessed.
The answer is b. Yes, Roger can refuse the work because he has given his supervisor his reason for refusing. Functional Area: C2 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. While Roger can refuse to work with the drilling machine, he must report his refusal and his reasons. B is correct. This is the proper protocol. C is incorrect. An employer cannot force an employee to continue to perform unsafe work. Reference(s): Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43(3)(a) and (4) Unit 5, Module 6: The Occupational Health and Safety Act
Roger is a machine operator on an assembly line and has been a skilled and diligent employee for the past 4 years. During this time, Roger primarily operated a machine that installs the doors on cars. However, to accommodate personnel changes, Roger has agreed to move to a position where he operates a drilling machine. After his first day in this new position, Roger tells his supervisor that he refuses to continue operating the drilling machine because it is unsafe. Roger’s hours are cut after he refuses to operate the drilling machine, although the hours for the other employees in the same position are not cut. Roger believes this is unfair and seeks legal advice. Does Roger likely have a legal case against his employer? Why? a) Not likely. There could be a number of legitimate reasons for the reduction in Roger’s hours. b) Likely. The employer’s actions may constitute a reprisal, which would be employer misconduct. c) Likely. The employer’s actions may constitute constructive termination.
The answer is b. Likely. The employer’s actions may constitute a reprisal, which would be employer misconduct. Functional Area: C2 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. If the company cannot provide legitimate justification for its actions against Roger, those actions may constitute a reprisal. B is correct. Section 50 of the OHSA defines what constitutes a reprisal, and this situation may well qualify. C is incorrect. Constructive termination occurs when the employer has unilaterally substantially altered the essential terms of the employment. A court will decide this matter by asking “whether, at the time the offer was made, a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee would have felt that the essential terms of the employment were being substantially changed”. Here the claimant had agreed to the altered position within the workplace. We also do not know how many hours were cut (they could range from a few to most of his hours) and do not know how many hours he would have been entitled to. Reference(s): Unit 5, Module 6: Occupational Health and Safety Act Farber v. Royal Trust, [1997] 1 SCR 846
