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
COVID-19Employment RegulationHealth and Safety

The National Basketball Association’s COVID Protocol and the Duty to Maintain a Safe Workplace

by David Doorey September 29, 2021
written by David Doorey September 29, 2021

By David Doorey, York University

The National Basketball Association just released its COVID protocols to teams that explained what will happen regarding unvaccinated players this season.   The question I have is whether this protocol satisfies the obligation imposed on the Toronto Raptors, the NBA, and MLSE to take all reasonable precautions to protect employees at games at Scotiabank Arena in downtown Toronto.

The NBA’s memo describes a bunch of rules that will apply to unvaccinated players, such as distance requirements from other players during meals and meetings, BUT DURING GAMES THEY WILL BE BREATHING AND SWEATING ALL OVER THEIR TEAMMATES, THE OPPOSING PLAYERS, AND THE REFS, AND VIRTUALLY ANYONE ELSE SITTING AT COURT SIDE.  Obviously they will not be wearing masks while they are playing.

The federal government granted a “national interest exemption” to the NBA to permit teams to cross into Canada, even players who are not vaccinated.  However, unless I am missing something, that exemption doesn’t override provincial occupational health and safety legislation.

The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act applies to work performed at the Scotiabank Arena, including work in the form of a professional basketball game.  Section 25 of that legislation imposes a long list of obligations on employers to maintain safe workplaces to take “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker”.  Raptors players and staff, along with all the people who work in the arena in various capacities are “workers” employed I assume by MLSE and/or the Toronto Raptors.  The OHS also imposes obligation on building owners to maintain safe conditions.

Therefore, we have to ask, is an employer satisfying its statutory obligations by permitting unvaccinated and unmasked  athletes to breath heavy all over their employees for several hours in an enclosed building?

Presumably, MLSE, the Raptors, and/or the NBA are resting their argument that they have “taken all reasonable precautions to protect workers” on the requirement for unvaccinated players to obtain a negative COVID test before entering the arena. In other words, as long as the unvaccinated player “passes” a COVID test, they should be free to breath and spit all over other workers in the workplace.  This strikes me as a somewhat controversial position.  I wonder if that type of argument would work in a factory or restaurant?

What do you think?  Does imposing a requirement for an unvaccinated person to obtain a negative COVID test as a condition of entering a workplace satisfy the OHS requirement to take “every reasonable precaution” to protect workers when the person will be required to breath heavily into the faces of other workers and neither the unvaccinated person or the other workers will be wearing masks?

What other information might you want to know in order to make your assessment?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
How to Amend an Employment Contract … Lawfully
next post
The “Changed Substratum Doctrine” in Employment Law

You may also like

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

Would the Recommendations in Ontario’s New Report on...

December 10, 2021

The New European Platform Work Directive Through a...

December 9, 2021

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 ·
1h

It’s crazy that fast food restaurants include non-competes in employment contracts for cooks and front line staff to stop them from leaving.

Never mind whether it’s legal—in Canada, those clauses are definitely not enforceable—it’s just sleazy. Terrible ethics.

Sandeep Vaheesan @sandeepvaheesan

Nice!

Reply on Twitter 1623168822235615232 Retweet on Twitter 1623168822235615232 5 Like on Twitter 1623168822235615232 9 Twitter 1623168822235615232
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 7 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
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.