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 SafetyOntario

The Right to Refuse in a COVID-19 World

by Michael Fitzgibbon March 27, 2020
written by Michael Fitzgibbon March 27, 2020

In view of the fact that the Ontario government has declared a state of emergency under the under section 7.0.1(1) of theEmergency Management and Civil Protection Act and passed O. Reg. 82/30 declaring certain businesses essential, I thought it might be a good time to review the right to refuse provisions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”). 

At the cornerstone of the OHSA is the internal responsibility system which is based on the principle that the workplace parties themselves (the employer, the employee and the union, in a unionized workplace) are in the best position to identify and solve health and safety problems.   As somewhat of an overstatement, it is only when they are unable to sort out their health and safety issues that they turn to the Ministry of Labour. 

The right to refuse (along with the right to participate and the right to know) is a fundamental principle of our OHSA.  But it is somewhat misunderstood and, in the context of COVID-19 is worth considering.

When can a worker refuse?

Section 43(3) provides that a worker may refuse to work or do particular work where he or she has reason to believe that,

(a) any equipment, machine, device or thing the worker is to use or operate is likely to endanger himself, herself or another worker;

(b) the physical condition of the workplace or the part thereof in which he or she works or is to work is likely to endanger himself or herself;

(b.1) workplace violence is likely to endanger himself or herself; or

(c) any equipment, machine, device or thing he or she is to use or operate or the physical condition of the workplace or the part thereof in which he or she works or is to work is in contravention of this Act or the regulations and such contravention is likely to endanger himself, herself or another worker.

So, before a worker can refuse under the OHSA, he or she must have reason to believe that (something) is likely to endanger himself, herself or, possibly, another worker.

Do all workers have a right to refuse under the OHSA?

Most workers in Ontario can invoke the work refusal provisions in the OHSA. 

There are certain categories or classes of workers who have a limited right to refuse under the OHSA.  Determining who has a limited right to refuse involves a two-step process.

The first step involves determining if the particular worker falls into any of the following categories:

(a) a person employed in, or a member of, a police force to which the Police Services Act applies;

(b) a firefighter as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997;

(c) a person employed in the operation of,

(i) a correctional institution or facility,

(ii) a place of secure custody designated under section 24.1 of the Young Offenders Act (Canada), whether in accordance with section 88 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or otherwise,

(iii) a place of temporary detention under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada), or

(iv) a similar institution, facility or place;

(d) a person employed in the operation of,

(i) a hospital, sanatorium, long-term care home, psychiatric institution, mental health centre or rehabilitation facility,

(ii) a residential group home or other facility for persons with behavioural or emotional problems or a physical, mental or developmental disability,

(iii) an ambulance service or a first aid clinic or station,

(iv) a laboratory operated by the Crown or licensed under the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act, or

(v) a laundry, food service, power plant or technical service or facility used in conjunction with an institution, facility or service described in sub-clause (i) to (iv). 

Once we determine that the worker falls into one of the above categories, the second step in the analysis is based on a consideration of the work and activities performed by the exempt worker.  The right to refuse does not apply:

(a) when a circumstance described in section 43(3)(a), (b), (b.1) or (c) as set out above are inherent in the worker’s work or is a normal condition of the worker’s employment; or

(b) when the worker’s refusal to work would directly endanger the life, health or safety of another person. 

Accordingly, the above employees do not have an unconditional right to refuse under the OHSA.

What is the process for asserting a work refusal under the OHSA?

Work refusals involve two (2) stages.

First stage

  • Worker considers work unsafe – in that machine, equipment, physical environment, tool etc… that the worker “is using or is told to use is likely to endanger himself or herself or another worker”.
  • Worker immediately reports refusal to his/her supervisor or employer. Worker may also wish to advise the worker safety representative and/or management representative. Worker stays in safe place.
  • Employer or supervisor investigates in the presence of the worker and the worker safety representative.

At this point, the issue will either be resolved, in which case the worker goes back to work, or the issue is not resolved, in which case the second stage is engaged.

Second stage

  • With reasonable grounds to believe work is still unsafe, worker continues to refuse and remains in safe place. Worker or employer or someone representing worker or employer calls MOL.
  • MOL Inspector investigates in company of worker, safety representative and supervisor or management representative.*
  • Inspector gives decision to worker, management representative/supervisor and safety representative in writing.
  • Changes are made if required or ordered. Worker returns to work.

What happens pending the Ministry of Labour Investigation?

The worker who refused the work must be kept in a safe place and may be offered other work (subject to any collective agreement that may apply).  The position of the Ministry of Labour is that the worker must be paid during this time.

The work that was refused may be offered to another worker provided management informs the worker that the offered work is the subject of work refusal. This communication must take place in the presence of:

  • a member of the joint health and safety committee who represents workers; or
  • a health and safety representative, or
  • a worker who because of his or her knowledge, experience and training is selected by the trade union that represents the worker or, if there is not trade union, by the workers to represent them.

Can Essential Service Workers Refuse Work under the OHSA?

The state of emergency declared by the Ontario government under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act is to protect the “health, safety and welfare of the people of Ontario in times of declared emergencies in a manner that is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. 

If the worker falls under one of the limited exemptions to the work refusal provisions of the OHSA (e.g. police officers) then the OHSA will continue to apply and they will have limited refusal rights under the OHSA. 

If, however, the worker happens to work for an essential service employer as declared under O. Reg. 82/30the situation would likely be different.  For example, if an employee works as a cashier at a grocery store (a “businesses engaged in the retail and wholesale sale of food”) which is an essential service under O. Reg. 82/30, does this person have a right to refuse under the OHSA or has that right been abrogated by the government through O. Reg. 82/30? 

It is unlikely that this person’s rights under the OHSA have been diminished simply because the government has declared their employer to be an essential service.  As such, though the world continues to evolve, and COVID-19 has thrown everything on its head, if this person asserts a work refusal, the process described above would be undertaken. 

The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act provides at section 7.2(4) that, in the event of a conflict between an order made under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act  and “any statute, regulation, rule, by-law, other order or instrument of a legislative nature, including a licence or approval, made or issued under a statute or regulation, the order made under subsection 7.0.2 (4) or 7.1 (2) prevails unless the statute, regulation, rule, by-law, other order or instrument of a legislative nature specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act.”  However, the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act goes on at section 7.2 to say that:

7.2 (8) Despite subsection (4), in the event of a conflict between this Act or an order made under subsection 7.0.2 (4) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act or a regulation made under it, the Occupational Health and Safety Act or the regulation made under it prevails.

Hopefully, the employer has taken specific COVID-19 related steps to meet their OHSA obligations and provided training to the affected employees, and that a dialogue at the First Stage will resolve the issue.  If things aren’t resolved, however, and the Ministry of Labour is called to dispatch an inspector to the scene, it is unclear in the COVID-19 world how this will work.

A really valuable resource is the Ministry of Labour, Guide to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Michael Fitzgibbon, “The Right to Refuse in a COVID-19 World” Canadian Law of Work Forum (March 27 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/the-right-to-refuse-in-a-covid-19-world/

See also Michael’s blog for more posts on COVID and other topics in employment law

#RighttoRefusecovidSafetywork
1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Michael Fitzgibbon

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

1 comment

Tammy June 18, 2020 - 12:37 pm

If you are a Dental Hygenist with a history of high blood pressure and anxiety for which you are currently taking medication for, are you aloud to refuse to work? The employer has provided us with PPE, but if you still don’t feel safe, what rights do you have?

Log in to Reply
previous post
A Plain Language Chart Describing Worker Entitlements in Ontario During COVID19
next post
Will Migrant Workers Be Covered by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit?

You may also like

Models of Broader-Based Sectoral Collective Bargaining

February 3, 2023

Lessons for the Railway Showdown from a Victory...

November 30, 2022

Court Strikes Down Ontario’s Punitive Public Sector Wage...

November 29, 2022

New Video: Standing Up to the Notwithstanding Clause

November 25, 2022

UPDATE: Ontario Invokes Notwithstanding Clause, Crushes Labour Rights...

October 31, 2022

R.O. MacDowell: Who Defines Appropriate Bargaining Units After...

October 10, 2022

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

September 19, 2022

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

September 16, 2022

Beware Ontario School Support Workers … We’ve Seen...

August 11, 2022

A Canadian Proposal for Starbucks Bargaining

August 2, 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 ·
11h

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 ·
12h

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.