A correctional officer with sinusitis and sensitivity to second-hand smoke was entitled to have her work refusal investigated by prison management, an arbitrator has decided.
Although the prison was a non-smoking facility, prisoners would smuggle in contraband cigarettes. There was an "informal arrangement" in place under which the correctional officer could be moved to a different area of the prison if she detected second-hand smoke.
At the time of her work refusal, there was labour unrest at the prison including "mass work refusals". She refused to work because she "believed that she would be exposed to second-hand smoke". She was directed to wait in the lunchroom, where she waited several hours and heard nothing from management. She, however, made no concerted effort to contact management about the status of her work refusal.
The arbitrator stated:
" . . . I fail to see why the Employer could not have initiated and completed an investigation of CO Gough's work refusal during the course of her 12-hour shift on September 7, 2014. It is not clear to me for example why a stage 1 investigation could not have been conducted by the Employer later in the afternoon, rather than the information gathering meeting that was held by DS Large. CO Gough's single work refusal was not that complicated and I would have thought that an investigation of it would have been relatively brief and could have been completed before the end of her shift. In considering all of the circumstances of that day, I find that the Employer's failure to conduct an investigation of CO Gough's work refusal on September 7, 2014, was not reasonable and that this failure amounts to a contravention of section 43 (3) of OHSA."
The arbitrator, however, rejected the union's argument that the way the employer handled the work refusal constituted harassment. There was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the employer.
Lastly, the arbitrator decided that the proper remedy was simply "declaratory relief": a declaration from the arbitrator that management failed to investigate the work refusal and thereby violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act. However, the correctional officer did not experience any harm that would justify an award of monetary damages.
For more information, visit our Occupational Health & Safety Law blog at www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com
About Dentons
Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.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.
