I chose to research labour arbitration cases on work safety. Work safety is a complex topic full of a wide range of issues. Arbitrators do not take safety infractions lightly deem them as very serious. Their decision is based on a comprehensive investigation that explores both parties involvement with this issue.

Key Issue #1: Are the concerns of safety being communicated by both employee and employer?

One key issue that I found rather interesting was the issue of employees properly communicating their belief that the working environment was unsafe and hazardous to their health and safety. This issue was interesting to me because it seems as though there seemed to be a problem of employees not informing their employers of safety concerns. The cases that deal with this particular issue stress the importance of notifying the employer as soon as possible when a concern for safety exists. When they have communicated their belief, the employer will take corrective measures to fix the concern if they can at all.

One example can be seen in the case Mercury Builders Supplies & Teamsters Union, Local 879, 18L.A.C(4th) 168. Here, an employee filed a grieva

Another rule or principal that the arbitrators based their decisions on when refusal to work in unsafe working conditions exists is whether or not proper safety investigations took place. This principal is outlined in the OHSA act as well and they stress the importance of abiding by this rule, as an employer's attempt to remedy the situation is not enough. They claim that under the OHSA act, it is the job of the Union Representative to be a part of all safety investigations and if he does not attend, then he is not full-filling his job as a union representative.

Second, the employee needs to understand the importance of the safety policies put into place. Both parties have agreed to these safety policies to ensure that all working conditions and equipment are safe for the employees. They are not there to penalize either party, but rather to protect them from unforeseen safety crisis's from rising. They should start to understand the principal, "work now, grieve later" and apply it to their situations when a safety concern arises regarding these long-standing policies.

Third, they must understand their rights with respect to work safety that are listed in the OHSA act. They must be very familiar with them and almost be able to cite them to their employer. The reason for this is because if they are discharged on the grounds of safety, they can use these rights in their defence against management. The OHSA act is there to protect the employee from any safety violations and also to protect them from unsafe working environments and equipment. This will reduce the amount of grievances taken to arbitration.

One other implication for management is the fact that they have to ensure that safety investigations are properly conducted as outlined in the OHSA act. If they fail to follow even just one of the procedures regarding these investigations, the union or an employee will most likely file a grievance on these grounds. They need to understand that applying a remedy to a safety concern isn't enough and that they need to conduct a proper safety investigation to the satisfaction of the union or the employee.

Their position was that it is the employee's right to exercise their refusal to work in unsafe working conditions. In the Mercury Builder's Supplies case, they referred to the article 14.4 under the collective agreement, which states..."No employee shall be penalized if he refuses to work under conditions which may work hazardous or under conditions contrary to the Canada Labour Code." In the H.M. Trimble & Sons (1983) case, the union claims the two employees made a full attempt to communicate their concerns and their employer dismissed their concerns telling them the concerns of violence were only rumours. In other words, the employees in these cases properly communicated their concerns but the employer failed to do anything about them, claiming that they were merely speculation.

They also looked at an average employee exercising normal judgment and whether they would have reason to believe that performing the same work would cause concerns of safety. In the case H.M. Trimble and Sons and Mercury Builder's Supplies, the arbitrator examined whether or not an average employee in a similar situation would refuse work. He also looked at whether or not the concern was reasonable in justifying refusing to comply with safety regulations and refusing to work. For example, in the Canada Post Corp. case, the arbitrator looked at whether or not other incidents have occurred using the long key chains.

Management also needs to be aware of their rights relating to the residual rights theory. As this theory suggests, any matter not dealt with in the collective agreement can be decided on the discretion of management. However, as Brown and Beatty suggests, these decisions must not be unreasonable. For example, in the case Island Telephone Co. Ltd, because the collective agreement did not stipulate any

Some common words found in the essay are:
Union's Position, Management's Position, Luscar Ltd, Co Ltd, Key Issue, Builder's Supplies, Engineers Local, Employees Unions, Union Local, Enterprises Inc, ohsa act, management's position, union's position, safety concern, safety equipment, key issue, collective agreement, mercury builder's, union representative, hm trimble sons, hm trimble, management's position management's, mercury builder's supplies, position management's position, canada post corp,
Approximate Word count = 4419
Approximate Pages = 18 (250 words per page double spaced)