Review of Alberta's Occupational Health and Safety Legislation 
The Occupational Health and Safety
Act (OHS Act) is a
major component of Alberta labour legislation. The Act states that its
purpose is the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of
well-being of workers, the prevention of worksite incidents, injuries,
illnesses and diseases, and the protection of workers from factors and
conditions
adverse to their health and safety. According to the Act, workers have
three basic rights regarding their health and safety: the right to know
about workplace hazards that may impact their health and safety; the
right to participate in health and safety matters in the workplace; and
the right to refuse work which is unsafe or which they are not
competent to do safely. The review of the
OH&S legislation was conducted
through a survey with questions provided by the Ministry of Labour and
Immigration. In the introduction of the survey, the Ministry states its
intention to make major changes to the Act to lessen the prescriptive
nature of the Act to give more flexibility and responsibility to the
parties at
workplaces. The document says: "While legislation
establishes and
sets basic standards, the government is responsible to develop and
enforce the law but not manage OHS in individual workplaces.
Legislation sets the framework to ensure the health and safety of a
work site through the direct participation of work site parties."
In fact, the entire survey is based on a desire of
employers and contractors to lessen what they consider regulatory and
prescriptive burdens so they can trample on those rights of workers
that are formally recognized in the Act. Here are a
couple of examples. Joint Health and Safety
Committees
The OHS Act prescribes
that
an employer must establish a joint work site health and safety
committee if the employer employs 20 or more workers and work is
expected to last 90 days or more. The Ministry
finds this clause of the Act to be too
restrictive for the parties and inhibits the parties' ability to act
with innovation and flexibility at the work place. The solution
proposed by the Ministry is the introduction of the concept of "low
risk work site" in the Act. On such sites, the requirement for a joint
OHS committee would not
apply. The survey asks respondents to comment on the conditions under
which a work site could be declared a "low risk work site." It
is important to keep in mind that whatever responses
the Ministry receives to this question are not provided in any form so
are not subject to public scrutiny. It is a pragmatic manoeuvre to
justify the changes that the Ministry and the private interests want to
make. The fact that such a question is even raised in the midst of the
global
COVID-19 pandemic, where there is clearly no such thing as a "low
risk" site, shows the self-serving and dishonest nature of government
executives and the financial oligarchs and that the aims of what they
are attempting to impose on society are anti-social. It shows too that
the refusal to hold public discussions on how serious problems facing
society can be provided with solutions is harmful to society. The fact
is that no matter what problems face a society, alternatives which are
safe are within our reach. It is not a foregone conclusion that people
have to die from COVID-19 or any other pandemic. They can be protected
and the economy does not have to be shut down. But none of this is
discussed. Right to Refuse Dangerous
Work
Another major example is the
issue of dangerous work and
a worker's right to refuse dangerous work, a basic right that is
formally recognized by the Act.
The introduction states, under the subhead "Right
to refuse":  "The right to
refuse is intended to address situations
where the right to know and the right to participate have failed to
address a health and safety concern. In Alberta, workers have the right
to refuse work that presents a danger. Employers cannot penalize
workers for refusing to work or otherwise complying with their
obligations under the
OHS Act. A worker may refuse work that may endanger
themselves.
However, the OHS Act does not define 'danger' or
place
limitations on refusals where other workers or the public may be
endangered. Providing more clarity in the OHS Act
will help balance the
protection of workers and others who may be impacted by a work refusal."
The survey has these questions under the "Right to refuse"
subhead: "1. How can 'danger' be better defined to
provide more clarity as to when the right to refuse unsafe work applies?
"Are there circumstances in which the right to refuse unsafe
work should be limited? Please explain and provide examples. "How
can the process outlined in the OHS Act be
streamlined to provide work site parties with more flexibility to
address work refusals in the workplace." The right
to address unsafe conditions with a refusal to work is negated when
governments pass laws which decree that a work site is safe. The
attempt is to make any refusal of what an individual or a union or
other collective considers unsafe illegal. First, no public opinion is
created to justify the foundation of a law which is passed. Then, if an
individual or collective takes action based on their conscience of how
they discern their interests are served, they are criminalized. The
levels of confusion, anxiety, anarchy and violence soar as a result.
The fact is that in a modern society it is the responsibility of
governments to protect the polity and all its members and insist that
employers do likewise no matter who they be. The same duty falls on
every member and collective of society. If governments abdicate their
responsibility and protect employers who also abdicate their
responsibility then it is the duty of individuals and their defence
organizations to step in. That governments are making it illegal to do
so merely shows the kind of battle the workers have in front of them.
It reveals the need for workers to hold forums amongst themselves where
they can discuss how these matters pose themselves, so that no one is
forced to fend for herself or himself without the weight of their peers
organized to back them up.
Today, taking stands
for what is just requires upholding principles as a matter of right.
Upholding the dignity of labour, opposing the anti-social agenda to pay
the rich, fighting for the rights of all, are all positions of
principle which open the path for a society which advances by
humanizing the natural and social environment. The working people must
establish for themselves the principled basis for their demands and
unite their peers in action to realize them.  The government
executive seems to want to take the route
of the Harper government which, in 2014, amended the Canada Labour Code
so that the Minister of Labour, who is bound by the code to investigate
the exercise of a right to refuse, may decide not to investigate if the
Minister considers that the matter is trivial, frivolous or vexatious,
or that the continued refusal to work is in bad faith. In that case,
the worker who refused to do the unsafe work is considered to be in
contravention of the Labour
Code and is penalized.
The Harper
government also introduced a new definition
of danger in the Labour
Code, which says that a danger is "any hazard,
condition or activity that could reasonably be expected to be an
imminent or serious threat to the life or health of a person exposed to
it before the hazard or condition can be corrected or the activity
altered." The
imminence of the threat is what was added. Who decides the limitations
on the right to refuse unsafe work is critical because it is on this
basis that judgements are made to vindicate or penalize a person or
collective for exercising their right to refuse unsafe work. When a
minister or government usurps the power to decide whatever they want in
a manner that they cannot be held to account by those who are affected
by the decision, and when everything becomes a matter of litigation in
courts of law and the decisions reached by the courts are also
manipulated, it is a sure sign of tyranny. The
questions posed on the matters of concern with regard to occupational
health and safety are all self-serving and of a calibre to make sure
the government and employers cannot be held to account as concerns what
constitutes duties as defined and required by a modern democratic
society. They reveal a government intent on further abdicating its
social responsibility and permitting employers to do likewise.
Attacking workers' rights in the name of flexibility and reopening of
the economy is not acceptable. The very idea of using a survey as a
consultation on matters of life and death, especially at this time of
the COVID-19 crisis, is unacceptable and should be opposed.
This article was published in
Number 55 - August 20, 2020
Article Link:
Review of Alberta's Occupational Health and Safety Legislation
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
