Labour minister defends changes to Act
On June 18, OPSEU Corrections Ministry Employee Relations
Committee chair Barry Scanlon sent an e-mail to the Corrections Minister Rob
Sampson, requesting that he oppose proposed changes to the Occupational
Health and Safety Act. Sampson instead chose to toe the party line, and
passed the buck to Labour minister Chris Stockwell. For continuity, here’s
Stockwell’s reply:
Dear Mr. Scanlon:
I am writing in response to your letter regarding
amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) in Bill 57. Your
letter raises a number of issues that I would like to address.
The changes to various laws administered by the Ministry
of Labour in Bill 57, which received Royal Assent on June 28, 2001, support the
government’s ongoing goal to reduce red tape and encourage investment, promote
economic growth and create jobs. Specifically, the changes to the OHSA
streamline and strengthen the Act, while removing overlap and duplication.
With respect to consultations and public hearings, many of
the amendments enacted are technical and a part of normal efforts to keep our
legislation current and valid. Other more substantive amendments build on
previous consultations such as the 1997 OHSA review.
Regarding work refusals, the amendment in Bill 57 permits
inspectors to gather information in consultation with the workplace parties,
instead of needing to be physically present each and every time, regardless of
the circumstances. This change does not affect a worker’s right to refuse unsafe
work and I expect that inspectors will continue to investigate the majority of
work refusals in person. I am confident that Ministry inspectors will use their
knowledge and professional judgment in a way that continues to protect workers’
health and safety and their rights.
The amendments regarding the reporting on non-critical
injuries to the Ministry leaves in place the requirement to provide copies of
the reports to the Joint Health and Safety Committee or Representative as well
as the union. This supports the role of the Internal Responsibility System at
the workplace in the early detection and resolution of health and safety issues.
Inspectors have the authority to require an employer to submit such notices to
the Ministry when considered necessary.
Regarding the future repeal of the requirement to notify
the Ministry when new chemical or biological substances are introduced in the
workplace, the Ministry has begun discussions with the federal government to
receive notification information submitted to Environment Canada under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act whenever a new substance is introduced to
the marketplace. Only when such an agreement is reached, would the Ministry
repeal the current requirement. The Ministry will use the information received
from the federal government to continue to assess the potential impact of any
new substance on worker health and safety. Ministry of Labour inspectors retain
the authority to require additional information or testing, if necessary. The
Act also permits the Ministry to prohibit or restrict the use of any substance
likely to endanger a worker.
The new sections providing for the use of codes of
practice to supplement performance-based health and safety regulations give the
Ministry an additional way to develop standards and to keep them current. There
are many performance-based requirements in the OHSA and its regulations now.
Supplementing these standards with a detailed or technical code of practice that
has special legal status will strengthen the legislation and provide clarity on
how to achieve compliance. Stakeholders will be consulted during the development
of codes of practice.
Finally, you refer in your letter to the repeal of the
OHSA section that required the preparation of inventories of hazardous materials
and floor plans. The Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)
provides for much more comprehensive information through the use of labels,
material safety data sheets and training than would be contained in an inventory
through or floor plan. In addition, section 38 of the OHSA provides for
information on these materials to be made available to the public and fire
departments upon their request.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to the government’s
attention. Let me reassure you that we will continue to promote workplaces that
are healthy, safe, and fair.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Stockwell
Minister of Labour
If Stockwell really believes that inspectors won’t take
advantage of the ability to make decisions over the phone, then he is extremely
naïve. More likely, Stockwell is continuing a Tory tradition of treating people
like they are very stupid.
We’re not.
Management slammed for P&P practices
York Region probation and parole officer and Central
Region health and safety representative Glen Jones has issued an excellent
letter outlining concerns regarding the emerging problems in probation and
parole offices.
The August 28 letter also specifies what probation and
parole officers and support staff will not do in the future.
As York Region Probation and Parole Officers meet with
local management in a spirit of co-operation to commence looking at the
deployment of intensive supervision and the further development and
implementation of the PPSDM Model, it is with regret that at this time I bring
up the Ministry’s poor record of performance in failing to address key, vital
issues that would impinge directly upon staff powers, duties, and performance,
to ultimately enhance the health safety and well being of all staff. The issues
of which I speak are well known and have been the subject of numerous
grievances. These are issues of workload, classification and peace officer
status.
While within the past several years there has been
significant movement, change and upheaval within the Ministry, many of the
changes have been extremely stressful and have had the opposite effect, of only
serving to increase workload. By this I refer to a significant increase in
responsibilities with the implementation of conditional sentencing, the PPSDM
model, computerization, the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) and
increased data entry and administrative accountability requirements. In terms of
classification and peace officer status, despite a proliferation of grievances
over the past six years and a presentation from the union, these issues remain
outstanding. It is, however, a cause for further concern at this time that the
Ministry has stopped holding second stage grievance hearings for many of its
recent grievances, in violation of the terms of the collective agreement.
Employees at this time remain deeply concerned about the
lack of progress in these and other areas. There are concerns that newly
bestowed duties and responsibilities that have been arbitrarily added without
proper process, examination, deliberation and union input, may directly further
risk and compromise the health and safety of staff. In much a similar vein to
that of the MPPs, who were recently awarded a 25 per cent pay increase for
“being subject to unreasonable demands, that border on harassment”, without
appropriate reclassification, peace officer status, enhanced authority,
provisions for protective equipment, backup, enhanced communication, and
adequate compensation, minimally, the same as the MPPs, the demands that have
been placed upon Probation Parole Officers, are unreasonable. The newly emerging
Probation/Parole Officer role with conditional sentences, intensive supervision
and its more rigorous requirements, relegates it to a new class, as that of a
poorly paid, demanding, dangerous, high risk, high stress and rather undesirable
occupation.
At this time, there is a general consensus among many of
the staff in York Region, that until such time as these issues are properly
addressed and satisfactorily resolved with the union, that the performance of
duties outside of ones own classification and the deployment of intensive
supervision in the current situation, presents undue health and safety risks. On
this basis, staff request a recent copy of their job description/classification
which has been previously requested, but not yet received.
PPOs will not be required to perform any more management
functions
·
They will not stay for FGI groups to 9 pm
· They will not be
involved in further developing or implementing the PPSDM Model
· They will not be
involved in auditing contract agencies
· They will not be
responsible for training or supervising new staff, students or volunteers
