Glencore Canada Corporation V. Sudbury Mine, 2015 Canlii 85298 (On LRB) And Vale Canada Limited V. USW Local 6500, 2015 Canlii 19525 (On LRB)
In these two cases, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered applications under Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act) regarding requirements for workplace inspections at two mines in Sudbury, Ont. In both cases, the Board considered the importance of achieving a reasonable level of protection for workers without creating absurd results by trying to eliminate every risk.
In Glencore Canada Corporation v. Sudbury Mine, the Board rescinded the orders of a Ministry of Labour inspector, which had prohibited skipping (the process of bringing mined or muck ore to the surface after it has been mined) and required the lock out and tag out of the production hoist while inspections of the main shaft at the Nickel Rim South Mine were being conducted. The Board considered the circumstances at the mine (including the dry, cement-lined shaft with brattice) and the nature of the industry, the operation and particular process, as well as the objective of the Act and found that, provided other precautionary measures were followed, Glencore could lawfully resume skipping and the use of the production hoist while the shaft inspections were being carried out from the main cage and auxiliary cage inspection decks. The Board found that this struck an appropriate balance between the risk of harm on the one hand and the ability to carry out business on the other. The Board also noted that due to the differences between mines and mine designs, an industry standard was not an appropriate measure.
In Vale Canada Limited v. USW Local 6500, the Board considered the appropriate frequency of a certain aspect of safety testing of the cage at Garson Mine. The Board interpreted s. 248(2)(a)(ii) of the Mines and Mining Plants Regulation as requiring the cage (used for hauling supplies, equipment and personnel, rather than ore) to be chaired on a daily rather than weekly basis, to ensure the dogs (clawlike clams which are an essential part of the safety braking mechanism to prevent the cage from falling down the shaft) could rotate. The Board found that the dogs could seize in less than a week, with potentially life-threatening consequences for the workers if they did, and the only reasonable way to determine if the dogs have seized is to simulate a freefall to see if the dogs rotate. In determining that this achieved a reasonable level of protection for workers without creating absurd results, it was also significant to the Board that it was an industry-wide practice to chair the cage on a daily basis.
To view the original article please click here.
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.
