Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
COVID-19Employment Regulation

Work Refusals and COVID-19

by Paul McLean March 21, 2020
written by Paul McLean March 21, 2020

Written By:   Paul McLean, Cheryl Edwards, Deanah Shelly and Jeremy Warning, Mathews Dinsdale [The following is general information and not legal advice.]

Canadian employers have a positive obligation to take reasonable care in the circumstances to protect the health and safety of employees under occupational health and safety legislation. This obligation is only heightened when faced with a global pandemic such as COVID-19.

Where a worker has a reasonable basis or reason to believe that there is a dangerous condition in the workplace, or that their duties present a danger to their health and safety (which is not an inherent or normal condition of their work), the worker may be able to refuse to attend work or perform certain duties.[1]

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers can expect to see work refusals from employees based on:

  • a confirmed or presumptive case of COVID-19 in the workplace;
  • a confirmed case of COVID-19 in an employee’s immediate family or other close contact;
  • the risk of potential exposure to COVID-19 from contractors, customers or clients  depending on the nature of the workplace or the people it serves;
  • concerns from employees who are particularly vulnerable (over age 65, compromised immune system, underlying medial condition) not wishing to report to work; or
  • employees with a generalized fear of contracting COVID-19 by travelling to or attending work.

Whether or not a work refusal based on the above or other grounds is reasonable is going to be highly dependant on the facts. Where a concern escalates to the level of a refusal by a worker, or group of workers, the employer must respond in accordance with occupational health and safety legislation, which response will include an investigation into the concerns and, if appropriate, adopting measures to eliminate or reduce the workplace danger.

In the context of COVID-19, the employer’s investigation will, in large part, be based upon the current scientific understanding of COVID-19 and the specific facts in the individual workplace. It may also require reference to or assistance from public health or medical authorities.[2]

Remember, employers can’t dismiss, discipline, or intimidate employees for properly exercising a health and safety right. An employer may be justified in imposing discipline if the work refusal has been exercised in bad faith. However, the ability to discipline will depend on the circumstances of the work refusal and the language in the applicable work refusal right.  An employer considering discipline for a refusing worker should do so after consultation with counsel in all but the clearest of cases.

If the employer and the worker are unable to resolve the issue, typically with the mandatory participation of the worker member of the workplace’s joint occupational health and safety committee (or a workers’ representative if applicable), the OHS regulator will be required to investigate and rule on the legitimacy of the work refusal.  

The determination by the OHS regulator may be made without meeting with the workplace parties in person. When dealing with a work refusal related to COVID-19, we suggest this process is highly likely because OHS regulators may be required to respond to an increased number of work refusals or as part of protective or preventative measures to limit the potential exposure or spread of COVID-19 by safety of inspectors/officers.

Employers should understand that once the OHS regulator is required to investigate and render a decision regarding the work refusal, certainty and predictability is lost as the inspector/officer will apply his or who own assessment to the circumstances. Employers may, therefore, consider whether remedial steps are taken to address the worker’s concern, even if the circumstances indicate a lack of endangerment.

The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic creates further challenges for employers in the following ways:

  • information is changing literally by the hour.  What was an unreasonable basis for a refusal to work yesterday may be reasonable today;
  • many provincial offices are closed or not operating as normal, including those which respond to appeals from work refusal orders – employers may have legitimate grounds to appeal an order arising from a work refusal but there is, candidly, nobody to deal with the appeal or having an appeal adjudicated on an expedited basis (which may be necessary) may be difficult to arrange; or
  • given the tremendous economic uncertainty which has been generated in a matter of days, employees may be reluctant to bring legitimate workplace safety issues to the employer, for fear of the workplace being closed or the employee sent home.

Moving forward, employers should continue to take all reasonable efforts to ensure the safety of their workers and now, more than ever, educate themselves and their workers as to the legitimate safety risks created by COVID-19 and the steps to address these risks.  Ensuring frequent and consistent communication may lessen workplace anxieties which could assist the functioning of the workplace in a number of ways – including reducing work refusals. 

Paul McLean, Cheryl Edwards, Deanah Shelly and Jeremy Warning, ” Work Refusals and COVID-19″ Canadian Law of Work Forum (March 21 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/work-refusals-and-covid-19/


[1] There are nuances between provincial jurisdictions and the federal legislation respecting how subjective the standard is for a worker to exercise a work refusal. This article provides general guidance only.

[2] There are specific rules addressing employees whose work is, by nature, dangerous, such as healthcare workers.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
Paul McLean

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Responding to a potential COVID-19 case in the workplace – steady as she goes
next post
Saskatchewan’s Labour Laws Allow Co-op Refinery to Reject Mediators’ Recommendations, Prolong Lockout

You may also like

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Calling the Shots: Is Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination a...

January 29, 2021

Does COVID Justify Longer Periods of Reasonable Notice?

January 25, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

Arbitrator: Employees Must Get Swabbed for COVID

December 16, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

What Could Biden’s Labor Secretary Do?

November 12, 2020

Alberta Government Continues Rollback of Worker Protections

November 10, 2020

Dispatches from Canada on the Big California Uber...

October 23, 2020

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
17h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
18h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
19h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • 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.