Quarry operator ordered to pay the wages of two workers it suspended for three days after they refused to work
Dufferin Aggregates v. C.E.P., Local 266, 2005 CarswellOnt 1272 (Ont. L.R.B.)
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has ordered a quarry operator to pay the wages of two workers it suspended for three days after they refused to work.
Trever Simpson and Clayton Fournier are experienced load operators for Dufferin Aggregates, a rock crushing operation. They dig, lift and convey blasted rock to the crusher at the processing plant at the quarry, using heavy machinery as necessary. The work is physically demanding.
On Oct. 2, 2001, Simpson was assigned to work the “sinking cut” section of the north quarry. He loaded five trucks worth of rock until further work became impossible. Fournier was assigned to assist Simpson using a bulldozer. They worked together, loading another five to 10 trucks until it was no longer possible to break the rock any further.
Simpson met with a supervisor and exercised his right, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to refuse unsafe work. Fournier was present and also refused. The supervisor accepted the refusal and suggested work at another part of the north quarry. Simpson and Fournier refused this work, as the conditions there were similar to the sinking cut. This refusal was also accepted.
The supervisor suggested they work at a part of the main quarry where conditions were much easier. Simpson and Fournier indicated they were done for the night — that they’d had enough jarring of their bodies and their health would be put in jeopardy if they worked another site. When Simpson and Fournier refused to take a look at it the supervisor felt they were being insubordinate. He sent them home and they were suspended for three days.
Their appeals resulted in two orders by an Occupational Health and Safety Act inspector against the company. The company appealed.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board for the most part denied the company’s appeal. Simpson and Fournier’s refusal to work must be understood in the context of their digging in the extremely difficult and physically taxing north quarry — their refusal was in this context warranted, it ruled.
The board distinguished between the actions of the two men. Simpson was the “driving force” in the work refusals. He was exhausted from his exertions and did not have the energy to continue. He reasonably believed he would injure himself if he took on more digging.
He therefore was not insubordinate, and no discipline was warranted. The company was ordered to remove the suspension from his disciplinary record and pay him for the unpaid portion of his shift and the three days he was suspended.
Fournier, however, was deemed to be motivated primarily by Simpson’s refusal to work. He was capable of working the main quarry and could not have had a reasonable belief he would be injured and his refusal was thus insubordinate. The board found, though, that the discipline was too severe. It ordered the company to pay him for the three days he was suspended but not for the portion of his shift after he stopped working.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has ordered a quarry operator to pay the wages of two workers it suspended for three days after they refused to work.
Trever Simpson and Clayton Fournier are experienced load operators for Dufferin Aggregates, a rock crushing operation. They dig, lift and convey blasted rock to the crusher at the processing plant at the quarry, using heavy machinery as necessary. The work is physically demanding.
On Oct. 2, 2001, Simpson was assigned to work the “sinking cut” section of the north quarry. He loaded five trucks worth of rock until further work became impossible. Fournier was assigned to assist Simpson using a bulldozer. They worked together, loading another five to 10 trucks until it was no longer possible to break the rock any further.
Simpson met with a supervisor and exercised his right, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to refuse unsafe work. Fournier was present and also refused. The supervisor accepted the refusal and suggested work at another part of the north quarry. Simpson and Fournier refused this work, as the conditions there were similar to the sinking cut. This refusal was also accepted.
The supervisor suggested they work at a part of the main quarry where conditions were much easier. Simpson and Fournier indicated they were done for the night — that they’d had enough jarring of their bodies and their health would be put in jeopardy if they worked another site. When Simpson and Fournier refused to take a look at it the supervisor felt they were being insubordinate. He sent them home and they were suspended for three days.
Their appeals resulted in two orders by an Occupational Health and Safety Act inspector against the company. The company appealed.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board for the most part denied the company’s appeal. Simpson and Fournier’s refusal to work must be understood in the context of their digging in the extremely difficult and physically taxing north quarry — their refusal was in this context warranted, it ruled.
The board distinguished between the actions of the two men. Simpson was the “driving force” in the work refusals. He was exhausted from his exertions and did not have the energy to continue. He reasonably believed he would injure himself if he took on more digging.
He therefore was not insubordinate, and no discipline was warranted. The company was ordered to remove the suspension from his disciplinary record and pay him for the unpaid portion of his shift and the three days he was suspended.
Fournier, however, was deemed to be motivated primarily by Simpson’s refusal to work. He was capable of working the main quarry and could not have had a reasonable belief he would be injured and his refusal was thus insubordinate. The board found, though, that the discipline was too severe. It ordered the company to pay him for the three days he was suspended but not for the portion of his shift after he stopped working.
