The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Common Law of EmploymentCOVID-19Employment RegulationHuman Rights

Temperature screening for the coronavirus – necessary but not sufficient

by Daniel Michaluk March 18, 2020
written by Daniel Michaluk March 18, 2020

Written by Daniel Michaluk, Hicks Morley

As we move deeper into the global pandemic, the use of temperature screening to control the spread of the coronavirus outbreak is presenting as a potential security and public health control. This is a short explanation of the applicable Canadian law and an argument for using temperature screening despite its flaws.

Temperature screening involves taking one’s temperature to assess the risk that they carry the coronavirus. It may be used by those who control physical access to premises. Employers, for example, control access to workplaces. Service providers may likewise control access to stores, entertainment venues and other physical premises. Along with this control comes a range of safety-related duties that arise out of occupational health and safety legislation, occupiers’ liability legislation and the common law. If access is tightly controlled, screening to address the risk of on-premises exposure to the coronavirus is feasible and arguably legally required.

Temperature screening, however, is plainly an imperfect screening mechanism. Although we are still learning about the coronavirus, a recent study of confirmed COVID-19 cases in China indicates that individuals can transmit the virus well before they have a fever or show other symptoms of COVID-19. And, of course, there are numerous reasons why someone might have a high body temperature. Aside from the seasonal flu, physical exertion can cause a spike in body temperature, for example.

This is why the World Health Organization says that temperature screening should always be used with other controls – health messages, a primary questionnaire and data collection and response. Employers and other organizations who wish to meet their safety-related duties should therefore not rest on temperature screening alone.

Temperature screening nonetheless has a compelling appeal in today’s near dire circumstances. First, temperature screening supplements screening by questionnaire well because it is relatively quick to administer. Second, the cost of false positives are arguably acceptable; Public Health Ontario currently recommends that every person with a fever, regardless of its cause, should self-isolate given mere risk the fever is caused by a coronavirus infection. Third, temperature screening sends an important message. Dr. Issac Bogoch of Toronto General Hospital recently explained to the Washington Post that simple screening measures can be a means of signaling the kind of commitment to public health that is required by everyone. “The optics matter,” he said.

This leads to the question of justification – a matter of “necessity” or “reasonable necessity” under Canadian privacy law, human rights law and the arbitral law that governs unionized workplaces. 

The application of this necessity requirement is far from uniform, and in many contexts individuals will have no right to assert. A non-unionized employee of an Ontario employer, for example, may either consent to a temperature check or refuse. Consent is a defence to any civil privacy breach claim, and a non-unionized employee in Ontario has no ability to mount a direct challenge to the screening policy itself (apart from a making a difficult human rights claim based on perceived disability).

In other contexts, justification may be required. Screening by public bodies and commercial actors, for example, is regulated across Canada and could be challenged by way of a privacy complaint. In that case, one of our privacy commissioners could ask for justification – for an argument that temperature screening is necessary in the circumstances, despite its flaws.

None of our commissioners have provided guidance on any form of screening for the coronavirus yet, though they tend to be pragmatic. If they do take interest in this issue, the experience in Italy ought to be a consideration. There, on March 2nd, the Italian data protection supervisory authority – the Garante – directed employers to refrain from collecting any information about flu-like symptoms being experienced by employees or their close contacts because public health is not an employer concern. Now that Italy’s death toll is over 2,500 and the country is in lock-down, this advice seems bad. Done properly – by a trained individual who uses a proper, calibrated instrument –  temperature screening by employers and others is a minimally invasive way of identifying some COVID-19 cases and preventing somespread of the coronavirus. In these times, some benefit is enough benefit.

Daniel Michaluk, “Temperature screening for the coronavirus – necessary but not sufficient” Canadian Law of Work Forum (March 18 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12001

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Daniel Michaluk

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Constructive Dismissal in the time of COVID-19
next post
COVID-19, Layoffs, and Employment Standards: An Introduction

You may also like

What Might a Right to Strike for Non-Union...

December 16, 2022

Lessons for the Railway Showdown from a Victory...

November 30, 2022

Why Gig Workers Are NOT Independent Contractors: A...

September 19, 2022

CUPW’s Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Against Uber Raises...

September 16, 2022

How Canadian Unions Responded to Vaccine Mandates, Protests,...

March 17, 2022

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

The Problem With Ontario’s Proposed Gig Worker Law...

February 28, 2022

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for...

February 18, 2022

Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights...

February 9, 2022

Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?

January 27, 2022

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
9h

I can’t believe that Almost Famous came out 23 years ago.

Time is flying by.

Reply on Twitter 1622776388179705859 Retweet on Twitter 1622776388179705859 3 Like on Twitter 1622776388179705859 14 Twitter 1622776388179705859
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

I had an LLM student who had a part-time job phantom writing labor arbitration decisions based on arbitrator’s notes and instructions.

Like law clerks do for judges (except parties don’t know about the phantom arb writer).

Is using a machine different? Interesting debate.

Valerio De Stefano @valeriodeste

The crucial part starts on p. 5, where the Court reports the answers to the legal questions they posed to ChatGPT. Then, at the end of p. 6, the Court adopts the arguments given in these answers as grounds for its decision.

Reply on Twitter 1622759377944952834 Retweet on Twitter 1622759377944952834 5 Like on Twitter 1622759377944952834 8 Twitter 1622759377944952834
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977, BC in 1993, & Ontario 1993-95.

Hysterical claims that these laws cause job losses & loss of investment aren't supported by evidence. Businesses just don't like them.

Short 🧵

1/

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

We’re banning replacement workers, as we said on Oct. 19th.

We’re working with unions and employers to get the balance right.

As agreed, government will introduce legislation by the end of this year.

Reply on Twitter 1622745098088861702 Retweet on Twitter 1622745098088861702 16 Like on Twitter 1622745098088861702 39 Twitter 1622745098088861702
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.