# Right to Refusal of Unsafe Working Conditions



## chrisf (28 May 2011)

As a matter of curiosity, can anyone point me to any formal written policy on the subject of right to refusal of unsafe working conditions?

Canada Labour Code Part II ensures the right to refusal of unsafe working conditions, while the CF is exempt from the Canada Labour Code, we do maintain voluntary compliance...

(In the event anyone makes any safety-un-enlightened comments, clearly we're all aware there are operational reasons where "unsafe" working conditions may exist... being shot at being a clearly unsafe working condition... but there's already clear policy on that... and not in any way what I'm talking about... clear day to day garrison and training circumstances where hazards can and must be avoided or neutralized... "I don't care how bad you want to see the hockey game, I'm not climbing on to the ice covered roof to fix the TV antenna" "No, I'm not going to hold up the front of the truck while you change the tire" etc)


----------



## Occam (28 May 2011)

C-02-040-009/AG-001
Chapter 24

SCOPE
3. Only DND civilian personnel have the right to refuse to work. CF personnel do not have
the right to refuse to work under this standard or the Canada Labour Code, Part II.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2011)

Then of course there is "common sense", but we all have to remember how uncommon it is to find such.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then of course there is "common sense", but we all have to remember how uncommon it is to find such.



To add to this, forcing a subordinate to conduct a task that is manifestly unsafe (along the lines you are talking about) would be poor leadership and would likely constitute a breach of the Code of Service Discipline.  I recall a few years back an Officer getting charged and going to Court Martial due to having a subordinate conduct some task on a roof in unsafe conditions that led to severe injury or death (I can't remember the specifics, only that he was found guilty).


----------



## aesop081 (29 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I recall a few years back an Officer getting charged and going to Court Martial due to having a subordinate conduct some task on a roof



The individual was killed in the incident. One officer and one NCM were disciplined as a result.


----------



## dapaterson (29 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To add to this, forcing a subordinate to conduct a task that is manifestly unsafe (along the lines you are talking about) would be poor leadership and would likely constitute a breach of the Code of Service Discipline.  I recall a few years back an Officer getting charged and going to Court Martial due to having a subordinate conduct some task on a roof in unsafe conditions that led to severe injury or death (I can't remember the specifics, only that he was found guilty).



A sapper in former Yugo was electrocuted and died while working on the roof of a storage shed, where the low-hanging electrical wires had previously been identified as a hazard.  Several court-martials ensued for the leadership above him.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2011)

To sum up:

Safety is a command responsibility. That means whether you are a General or a Private in charge of a work detail. If you are in comand, it is your baliwick.

Having said that, some jobs are inherent to danger. Can a cop refuse to chase an armed robber because he may get shot? No. However he can refuse to chase said criminal in a vehicle that he suspects has faulty brakes.

You'll have to provide more specifics if you want more than a general answer.


----------



## chrisf (29 May 2011)

Nope, general answer wanted and given. Section 24.

We all wish "common sense" were common. It is not however.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (29 May 2011)

I don't think you give the uniformed cadre of the CF enough credit. One major thing I find separating us from (some) civilian counterparts is something I was taught from an early stage in my career - CDF (common dog f***...or common sense). I see it near daily with civilian friends as well as neighbours. I have actually had others who do not know I am military to say something along the lines of "You can tell you are military", and I don't mean in a condescending way. This question has come up in my career several times not only from subordinates but I too have posed it. It was most definitely a hot topic in the 80s with asbestos strip outs being done on the IRE and STL class destroyers in the Navy and I recall on several occasions personnel blindly refusing to do it without at least minimal precautions (which cost extra time and money). I remember a young fellow refusing to allow a register on a lit boiler to be changed while we were with the NATO fleet. Without a whole lot of fanfare, he was relieved for the duration of the work and settled back into his watch on completion. With some of our training mimicking civilian training and a general increase in the education level of entry level recruits, I suspect there will be some sort of a showdown soon.
My opinion.


----------



## Stoker (29 May 2011)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I don't think you give the uniformed cadre of the CF enough credit. One major thing I find separating us from (some) civilian counterparts is something I was taught from an early stage in my career - CDF (common dog f***...or common sense). I see it near daily with civilian friends as well as neighbours. I have actually had others who do not know I am military to say something along the lines of "You can tell you are military", and I don't mean in a condescending way. This question has come up in my career several times not only from subordinates but I too have posed it. It was most definitely a hot topic in the 80s with asbestos strip outs being done on the IRE and STL class destroyers in the Navy and I recall on several occasions personnel blindly refusing to do it without at least minimal precautions (which cost extra time and money). I remember a young fellow refusing to allow a register on a lit boiler to be changed while we were with the NATO fleet. Without a whole lot of fanfare, he was relieved for the duration of the work and settled back into his watch on completion. With some of our training mimicking civilian training and a general increase in the education level of entry level recruits, I suspect there will be some sort of a showdown soon.
> My opinion.



Funny that you mention that Pat. For the last few years in order to do cleaning stations you have to be specifically trained in the use of the products you use. A form is filled out as per the EMS for the ship and is retained on your UER or  your pers file. Until you are trained in the proper use of the product you can refuse to do the cleaning station. That's what formation environment is telling the kids. We already had has refusals, usually takes 5 mins to carry out the training but still. New navy I guess.


----------



## old fart (29 May 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The individual was killed in the incident. One officer and one NCM were disciplined as a result.



A few more than that...

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/mobil/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=769

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6972/is_12_6/ai_n28757070/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6972/is_4_7/ai_n28757088/

A few careers were cut short as they were held to account.  All good people, but that's the way it is.  The sapper (Gilles Desmarais) who died was in my troop prior to my commissioning a few months earlier.

Spr Desmarais RIP.


----------



## BernDawg (29 May 2011)

(Insert Common Sense Icon Here)

I have refused unsafe work for my self and subordinates in the past. I have also sanctioned risky practices while in an operational setting.  Situation dictates, if there's a lightening storm and you want the drip in your office fixed rest assured I will not send my troops onto the roof. If the Hangar door won't close and there is a possibility of an aircraft becoming damaged then a jury rigged man lift using a cage and forklift would likely be authorized for use.

It has been my experience, that in my trade, we have always taught that the right of refusal is there but not to be used as a tool to avoid un-pleasant work as opposed to unsafe work and the onus is on the supervisor to determine which is which.

In the extreme members do have the right to refuse an order but that is a very slippery slope to navigate.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2011)

I've always appreciated it when someone walks up to me and said something like" You know sir, that could get someone killed/hurt etc". It's not always obvious at the time, and it takes a team approach to keep people safe. Oh, and thank Gawd for good SNCOs!


----------

