OHS laws give workers the right to refuse dangerous work as long as workers’ fears are reasonable. If the work isn’t really dangerous—or doesn’t reasonably appear to be dangerous—the worker’s refusal is unjustified. Typically, workers refuse work because of dangerous conditions, such as the lack of appropriate safety equipment, toxic fumes, extreme weather conditions, etc. But can workers refuse to work because of the presence of a dangerous person—such as a violent customer or a careless co-worker? In other words, is a worker’s fear that he might get hurt by another person legitimate grounds for refusing work? Here’s a look at how two labour relations boards decided this question.

A corporation is considered a legal person. Like a biological person, it can be guilty of a crime if the prosecutor shows that an individual within the corporation committed a crime. Prosecutors must then persuade the judge or jury to hold the corporation responsible for that individual’s offence. This concept is called attribution of liability and it’s at the centre of Bill C-45. A corporation could be held responsible for an individual’s criminal negligence before C-45 took effect. But under the old law, the prosecutor had to prove that the individual who committed negligence was the corporation’s “directing mind.” Corporations were thus accountable for the actions of only a small circle of individuals within the organization. C-45 loosens up the attribution rules and makes corporations liable for a much wider range of individuals. The Insider will use a recent case from Ontario to demonstrate the new attribution rules and their potential impact. The case involves an incident that took place before C-45 went into effect. So the court had to apply the old law. First we show how the case was actually decided and then how it might have been decided if C-45 had applied.

Like most companies, you may ban workers from wearing rings, necklaces, earrings and other jewellery at work. This policy is sensible, especially for workers working near machinery and equipment. After all, ensnarement of a dangling necklace or bracelet in the moving parts of a machine has cost more than one worker a finger, hand, limb or life. Unfortunately, some workers might regard the wearing of jewellery as a harmless form of self-expression and ignore the policy. Violation of a no-jewellery policy can be grounds for suspension or even termination. But, as is always the case with discipline, the punishment must fit the offence and be meted out in a way that respects the worker’s rights. Here are two cases in which a labour relations board had to evaluate the appropriateness of discipline under a no-jewellery policy. Although both are from Ontario, the same reasoning would apply in other provinces.

Provincial, territorial and even local laws banning smoking in all indoor public places—including workplaces—are all the rage now. These laws typically require employers to either ban smoking entirely or limit it to designated areas of the workplace. Employers must also ensure that all workers and visitors comply with smoking restrictions. But because these laws are so new, employers have had little guidance on what exactly they’re expected to do to enforce them. For example, if an inspector catches several workers smoking and charges their employer with failing to enforce a smoking ban in its workplace, how does the employer prove that it exercised due diligence? Here are two recent cases that offer some insight on that question. The cases involve very different workplaces. But in each case, the employer was able to prove that it exercised due diligence in enforcing a smoking ban.

You can’t discipline a worker for refusing dangerous work, complaining about a safety problem, joining a JHSC or exercising any other safety right granted by the OHS law. But workers who exercise safety rights might also commit infractions that do merit discipline. When a worker who both exercised a safety right and committed an unrelated infraction gets disciplined, it raises a tricky question: Was the worker disciplined because he exercised the safety right or because he committed the unrelated infraction? In other words, what makes discipline retaliatory? In answering that question, courts and labour boards typically look at whether there’s a “nexus”—that is, connection—between the protected act and the discipline, considering factors such as the timing of the two events. Here are two cases that deal with this issue.