The Ontario Labour Relations Board has refused to permit a
teachers' union to expand a safety appeal to several
schools where the Ministry of Labour inspector had dealt with the
issue at only one school.
The inspector had issued an order at one school, requiring the
school board to re-inspect the premises for asbestos. The
teachers' union asserted that the order was
"inadequate".
The teachers' union appealed the inspector's order and
asked the Ontario Labour Relations Board to require the school
board to assess its asbestos-management program at all schools in
the board.
The OLRB effectively held that an appeal of an inspector's
order may deal with only the issues already put to the
inspector. The inspector must actually turn his or her mind
to the issue and have the opportunity to conduct an inspection,
before the union can advance an appeal in respect of that issue.
Here, the inspector was involved at only one school, so it was not
appropriate to expand the appeal to deal with other
schools.
The case is interesting because it indicates that employers can
insist that where employees or a union appeal an inspector's
order or refusal to issue an order, the appeal should deal only
with issues actually put to the inspector and locations visited by
the inspector.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
Bill 168, the 2010 amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act recognized the importance of maintaining workplaces free from violence and harassment and required employers to develop and implement workplace violence and harassment policies.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
