# Pregnant service wife



## 63 Delta (26 Jan 2012)

I'm writing looking for some advice. My wife is 5 months pregnant and is in the army. In order to get to her work, she has to walk over 150 metres of icy paths and roadway. Because of the lay out of her compound, salting is very ineffective, and is minimally used. She had requested through her CoC, and had permession to park next to her building on days when it was to icy to walk from the parking lot. This worked fine until recently when she was told she could no longer park there, and had to walk from the parking lot. I traveled to her building twice and have slipped 4 times, and I am having a hard time understanding why she would be denied her request. I understand there maybe some rules regarding civi and mil vehicles in the same compound, but there is no other safe way for her to travel to work. 

She had talked to a RN at the UMS, but the RN did not seem to understand the situation, telling her to wait until she sees her MO to change her TCAT. Unfortunately I cant see any safe way for her to get to work in the mean time. I even escorted her from the building today to her parking spot, but I cant do that everyday with my own work. Its very frustrating that her own unit will not work with her. I don't feel that her request is in anyway unreasonable.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jan 2012)

An email to her supervisor with a cc to her section safety rep requesting an appointment with the UGSO &/or Unit JOSH committee ...




Any Civ Employees at her workplace? I'm surprised they would stand for such a thing as icy sidewalks ... given the Canada Labour Code says, "NO!!".


----------



## medicineman (26 Jan 2012)

Echo to Vern - get the Unit and if necessary, Base Safety folks involved.  I find it hard to believe that a work party isn't out once a day to salt or sand paths around unit lines, especially if nothing else useful is being done...also, in the past, I've written medical statements to Base and Unit parking authorties to issue parking permits close to the work place for health related reasons - I'm sure someone in her UMS could do that.

MM


----------



## 63 Delta (26 Jan 2012)

Thanks for the replies... This order came down from somewhat high up, so I don't even know if anyone would even listen to her. 

To MM, I'm going to get her to go back to the UMS and ask about a parking pass, or at least get a chit stating shes not allowed to walk across uneven ground.

As for the issue about salting, I think its not done for a number of reasons. Lack of leadership, no true path to her work (its all one big cement pad) and probably a complete lack of supplies stored by the CQ.


----------



## Armymedic (26 Jan 2012)

Hulk, 

Pm me your wifes unit...I might be able to help direct you a bit more accurately.


----------



## 63 Delta (26 Jan 2012)

PM sent.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Jan 2012)

I'm sorry, but this shouldn't even be a _medical_ issue.  It's a _safety_ issue for all employees there.  Never mind calling the UGSO, call the BGSO.


----------



## Occam (26 Jan 2012)

I really wish they had A-GG-040-001/AG-001 on the web.  I know Public Service employees have the right to refuse unsafe work, but I can't recall if the CF (in a non-operational situation, of course) have the same right of refusal.  The GSP would have the answer.

I'm pretty sure refusing to come into the building would get the appropriate people's attention fairly quickly.


----------



## Strike (26 Jan 2012)

I'm surprised no one in your wife's unit that has an assigned spot close to the main entrance hasn't volunteered to give up their spot to her until she goes on leave.  That's just unsat.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Jan 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one in your wife's unit that has an assigned spot close to the main entrance hasn't volunteered to give up their spot to her until she goes on leave.  That's just unsat.



From the sounds of it, she works in a compound and no one parks inside.


----------



## 63 Delta (26 Jan 2012)

She works in a compound, inside of a compound... She has to travel through 2 gates and fences just to get to work...


----------



## Armymedic (26 Jan 2012)

Do what Moe says...this is an occupation safety issue, and on that she is an expert.

The civie nurse and MO at the CDU can't really do anything to solve the problem.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Jan 2012)

Mind you, my advice is not necessarily for you to do it.  She should.  She can call her UGSO and explain the situation but if nothing is done (and I mean pretty much immediately), then go to the BGSO.

Remember, safety is _everyone's_ responsibility.

(Yes, I _used_ to be a UGSO.   )


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Mind you, my advice is not necessarily for you to do it.  She should.  She can call her UGSO and explain the situation but if nothing is done (and I mean pretty much immediately), then go to the BGSO.
> 
> Remember, safety is _everyone's_ responsibility.
> 
> (Yes, I _used_ to be a UGSO.   )



Yes. And attempting to resolve through UGSO first is the proper CoC wrt safety matters.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes. And attempting to resolve through UGSO first is the proper CoC wrt safety matters.



Indeed.  But some units don't have one.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Indeed.  But some units don't have one.



True that, but all should have a safety rep at the minimum. I just want to make sure she doesn't skip any level of the proper CoC for safety and go straight to the BGSO. She may suffer unnecessary fallout for that.


----------



## Grunt_031 (27 Jan 2012)

In the meantime, have her raise a DND 663 Hazardous Occurrence Report, because there is a potential for injury and even death, and send up CofC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jan 2012)

Every worker has the right to refuse unsafe work. Full stop.

A pregnant worker goes to see the doctor.

The doctor writes on the medical certificate his decision on whether or not the work the worker stopped doing might be dangerous to the worker and\ or the foetus. In other words, the medical certificates states whether or not the work poses to the worker and\ or the foetus a health risk.

A worker who's not unionized is assigned by the supervisor to do other work. But if the supervisor cannot assign to the worker other work, then the worker can take "leave without pay". A worker on leave without pay might be able to receive some pay - under the Employment Insurance Act, or the employer's private insurance plan.


Pamphlet #4 prepared by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada explains the process and parameters for a Work Refusal under the Canada Labour Code Part II.

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/publications/health_safety/pdf/right_refuse_dangerous_work.pdf

Unsafe work includes getting to your job on the employers property.

As well, Regulations made under the Act contain Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (SOR/86-304) cites in section 2.14 - 

2.14 (1) *Every exterior stairway, walkway, ramp and passageway that may be used by employees shall be kept free of accumulations of ice and snow or other slipping or tripping hazards.*

(2) All dust, dirt, waste and scrap material in every work place in a building shall be removed as often as is necessary to protect the health and safety of employees and shall be disposed of in such a manner that the health and safety of employees is not endangered.

*(3) Every travelled surface in a work place shall be

(a) slip resistant;* and


(b) kept free of splinters, holes, loose boards and tiles and similar defects.


----------



## Occam (27 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Every worker has the right to refuse unsafe work. Full stop.



I was thinking the CF follows the CLC in this situation...but it doesn't.



From A-GG-040-001/AG-001 CHAPTER 6

SECTION 4 - REFUSAL TO
WORK BECAUSE OF DANGER

PURPOSE

41. The purpose of this section is to set out the
procedures covering employee refusal to work because
of danger.

42. In the Code, “danger” is defined as any existing
or potential hazard or condition or any current or future
activity that could reasonably be expected to cause
injury or illness to a person exposed to it before the
hazard or condition can be corrected, or the activity
altered, whether or not the injury or illness occurs
immediately after the exposure to the hazard, condition
or activity, and includes any exposure to a hazardous
substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in
disease or in damage to the reproductive system.

43. Employees of the Public Service have the right
to refuse work in situations where the individual has
reasonable cause to believe that there is a danger to his
or her safety or health, or to that of another person.
When exercising this right, every Public Service
employee is entitled to have an investigation into the
perceived danger. Management may not arbitrarily
decide that the work is not dangerous. Rather, the CO
must have an investigation conducted in the presence of
a non-management health and safety committee
member. The GSO should also take part in this
investigation as a consultant. If the perceived danger is
health related, the Base Surgeon or personnel from
Health Canada’s Occupational Health and Safety
Program must be requested to assist.

44.  Although the procedures outlined in this
section do not apply to members of the CF except in
their supervision or management of civilians, it is the
duty of all CF personnel to report immediately any
situation in their day-to-day routine duties where there
is danger or likelihood of accident.


----------



## Pusser (27 Jan 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> I was thinking the CF follows the CLC in this situation...but it doesn't.



Not entirely true.  The reason the CF is exempted from the CLC is to prevent members from refusing combat and other such integral parts of our jobs as "dangerous work."  However, the CF does have a policy of "voluntary compliance" when it comes to the CLC and other acts from which we are also exempted (e.g. Transportation of Dangerous Goods).  In effect, this means we must follow the CLC unless there is a darn good reason not to.  Period.  Full stop.  This policy is well-enforced through precedent.  There was a court martial a few years ago where a major in the Engineers was charged with failing to ensure proper safety procedures were followed (as detailed in the CLC) with respect to a member working on the roof of a temporary building in an *operational* (i.e. outside of Canada under austere conditions) theatre.  The member was electrocuted and died.  The major was found guilty and busted to lieutenant.  He released shortly after that.


----------



## 63 Delta (27 Jan 2012)

It seems this problem has been dealt with so far at the lowest level. So thank you very much for everyones prompt and informative replies.


----------



## krustyrl (27 Jan 2012)

Glad to see a positive spin on the situation.


----------

