Health and Safety in Canada
...ces in Canada, with the exception of Manitoba and New Brunswick will allow work refusals when work may endanger a worker's health and safety. As stated in Occupational Health and Safety Law Handbook, 1984, "Manitoba and New Brunswick are the only provinces in Canada where workers are restricted to concern about their own health and safety when considering a refusal to perform worker is using a piece of equipment that may have been improperly wired. The worker may not be at risk, nevertheless the use of the equipment in this fashion is illegal, and therefore the worker must choose not to use it. In addition, no worker is required to break the law by performing work in an illegal manner. The duty of refusing unsafe work is treated similarly with the right to refuse. It is possible that an employee can be prosecuted if it can be proven that the employee was aware of the unsafe work practice and failed to address it. Although "no cases have been reported to date, this does not mean that workers could not be prosecuted" (Nash, 107). In both Alberta and Newfoundland, the legislation requires that the worker shall refuse to perform work that puts that individual or another employee at imminent risk. This is required without reference to the workers perceptions or opinions. In this situation, if the worker fails to "appreciate how severe a situation was, that may simply be his or her legal misfortune" (Nash, 119). Consequently, the question of belief, as well as whose safety is subject to a potential threat, and the severity of the hazard remain to be issues of contention. In the event that work is not inherently unsafe, where the worker is not in any present danger, how is it possible to define whether the work environment is actually posing a threat to one or more of its workers? One can see that the right to refuse becomes a more complex issue. Legislation in Ontario is not clear cut when it comes to work refusals that deal with issues such as repetitive motion injuries or exposure to a work environment that may not appear hazardous at the time, but could be in the future. According to the article by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) titled, "Gray vs. Bergie", the complainant Mr. Gray addresses the issue of a substance called Toluol which is used as a spray-clean transformer. Subsequently, this substance can have damaging effects on the body, and overexposure may leave workers blind. "At the time I had no concrete evidence and it remained only speculation on my part. Mr. Bergie expressed interest in the possibility but said that one would have to have some proof of the practice..." (OLRB Report, 327). While there is an extensive list of substances with acceptable exposure limits, a number of substances may exist that are not being fully understood at this time. In addition, there may be workers who are particularly sensitive to specific co...