Archived - Decision: 09-034 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.
Case No.: 2009-24
Decision No.: OHSTC-09-034
Roch Carrière
Appellant
and
Correctional Service of Canada (Edmonton Institution)
Respondent
October 19, 2009
This is a decision rendered by Pierre Rousseau, Director / Appeals Officer.
For the appellant
Ms. Jessie Caron, CSN Union Advisor
For the respondent
Correctional Service of Canada - (Edmonton Institution)
[1] Pursuant to our letter dated September 17, 2009 and your letter dated October 1, 2009, I regret to inform you that Mr. Carrière's appeal cannot be entertained by an Appeals Officer. Part II of the Canada Labour Code (the Code) provides that Appeals Officers can hear appeals on two grounds: pursuant to a decision of no-danger in the context of a work refusal (129(7) of the Code) or pursuant to the issuance of a direction (146(1) of the Code).
[2] In the case at hand, your letter clearly indicates that Mr. Carrière's appeal ''...is not concerned with a refusal to work...'' and that the object of the appeal is the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC). As reiterated by the Federal Court in Maritime Employers Association v. Her Majesty the Queen of Canada et al. 2008 FC 1393, the AVC is neither a procedure nor a step provided by the Code and the appeal process set out in the Code can only be triggered once a direction is issued.
Pierre Rousseau
Director / Appeals Officer
Page details
- Date modified: