Archived - Decision: 03-017 Canada Labour Code Part II
Occupational Health and Safety
Archived information
Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
| Michel Lacasse Daniel Côté Alain Gingras Robert Mongrain applicants and SECUR employer _____________________ Decision No. 03-017 October 14, 2003 |
Representations
Jocelyn Tremblay and Suzanne Voisard, Canadian Union of Public Employees, for the employees
Erik Sabbatini, counsel, Lavery, De Billy, for the employer
[1] On April 18, 2002, Messrs. Côté, Lacasse, Mongrain and Gingras informed their employer that an absence of safety equipment posed a danger to them, and that they had chosen to exercise their right of refusal to work. Health and safety officer Normand Aubry investigated the refusal to work by the SECUR employees and subsequently decided that there was no danger.
[2] On May 1, 2002, Jocelyn Tremblay of the Canadian Union of Public Employees filed an appeal on behalf of the above-mentioned employees against the decision rendered by health and safety officer Normand Aubry on April 24, 2002. Nonetheless, on September 24, 2003, Suzanne Voisard of the Canadian Union of Public Employees informed the Canada Appeals Office on Occupational Health and Safety that they were withdrawing their appeal against the above-noted decision of no danger.
[3] As the appeals officer reviewing this matter, I confirm that the Canadian Union of Public Employees representing the four employees has withdrawn the appeal of the decision of no danger rendered by health and safety officer Normand Aubry. This file is now closed.
_____________________
Serge Cadieux
Appeals Officer
Summary of Appeals Officer Decision
Decision No.: 03-017
Applicants: Michel Lacasse Daniel Côté Alain Gingras Robert Mongrain
Employer: SECUR
Key Words: Refusal to work, safety equipment, armoured truck.
| Provisions: | Code 129(7) Regulations |
Summary:
On April 18, 2002, Messrs. Côté, Lacasse, Mongrain and Gingras informed their employer that an absence of safety equipment posed a danger to them in the performance of their work. They therefore chose to exercise their right of refusal. The health and safety officer decided that there was no danger to the employees.
On May 1, 2002, the Canadian Union of Public Employees appealed the decision by health and safety officer Normand Aubry rendered on April 24, 2002, and, on September 24, 2003 withdrew the appeal. This file is closed.
Page details
- Date modified: