Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada

Case No.: 2005-36

Decision No.: CAO-07-006

 

 

 

CANADA LABOUR CODE

PART II

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

 

 

 

Michelle Ingram

appellant

 

 

and

 

 

Correctional Services Canada

respondent

 

________________

Decision No.: CAO-07-006

March 12, 2007

 

 

 

This case was decided by Appeals Officer Serge Cadieux.

 

 

For the appellant

Michel Bouchard, CSN Ontario Union Advisor

Michelle Ingram, Correctional Officer II

 

For the respondent

Karen Clifford, Counsel, Treasury Board, Legal Services

Bruce Somers, A/Deputy Warden, Warkworth Institution

 

Health and Safety Officer

Bob Tomlin, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

• [1] This case concerns an appeal made on September 7, 2005 under the Canada Labour Code, Part II (the Code), subsection 129(7) [1] , by Ms. Michelle Ingram of Correctional Services Canada at the Warkworth Institution.Ms Ingram had exercised her right under the Code to refuse to work if danger exists.The appeal was made against the decision rendered by Health and Safety Officer (HSO) Bob Tomlin to the effect that the danger referred to by the employee does not exist.

 

• [2] Ms. Michelle Ingram is a correctional officer level II (CO II) at the Warkworth Institution.This Institution is a federal medium security penitentiary.Ms. Ingram had refused to work at 11:30 hrs on September 2, 2005 .HSO Bob Tomlin investigated Ms. Ingram’s refusal to work and issued the decision under appeal.He reported Ms. Ingram’s Statement of the refusal to work in his Investigation Report and Decision as follows:

 

The length of time it takes for assistance to arrive in response to a cell alarm is too long and places me in a potential danger. Also, I might be required to respond to an emergency cell alarm alone and this places me in potential danger.

 

• [3] The parties agreed that this appeal and the appeal case number 2005-35 [2] should be heard concurrently by the appeals officer given their similarity.Furthermore, they also agreed that these cases should proceed with a full oral hearing.

 

• [4] Prior to the four-day hearing that had been scheduled to commence on March 6, 2007 , this appeals officer convened the parties to a pre-hearing telephone conference to be held on February 27, 2007 .Both, Mr. Michel Bouchard for the employees and Ms. Karen L. Clifford for the employer took an active part in the telephone conference which ended on a positive note and an agreement on the amount of time needed by each party for the hearing.

 

• [5] On March 2, 2007, Mr. Michel Bouchard sent a fax to the Canada Appeals Office in which he notified the Appeals Office “…that we are withdrawing the appeals in the subject files, scheduled for hearing on Tuesday March 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th in Kingston, with apologies for the eleventh hour notification.”

 

[6] Considering the written notification of withdrawal of the appeal and having reviewed the file in this case, I accept Mr. Bouchard’s withdrawal of appeal on behalf of Ms. Ingram. I declare this case closed.

 

 

 

 

_________________

Serge Cadieux

Appeals Officer

SUMMARY OF APPEALS OFFICER DECISION

 

 

Decision CAO-07-006

 

Appellant Michelle Ingram

 

Respondent Correctional Services Canada

 

Provisions

 

Canada Labour Code 129(7)

Keywords Withdrawal, CO II, cell alarm

 

SUMMARY

 

On September 7, 2005 , Michelle Ingram appealed a decision of no danger following a work refusal. On March 2, 2007 , Michel Bouchard, union representative of Ms. Ingram, withdrew the appeal. The case is therefore close.