Archived - Decision 06-038 Canada Labour Code Part II Occupational Health and Safety

Correctional Service Canada
appellant

and

UCCO-SACC-CSN
respondent
___________________________
Decision No.: 06-038
November 3, 2006

This case was decided by Appeals Officer Richard Lafrance.

For the Appellant
Mel Sater, Counsel, Correctional Service Canada
Harvey Newman, Senior Counsel, Treasury Board Legal Services
Richard Fader, Counsel, Treasury Board Legal Services

For the Respondent
Michel Bouchard, Union Advisor, UCCO-SACC-CSN

Health and Safety Officer
Chris Mattson, Labour Program,
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

[1] This case concerns an appeal made on January 20, 2004 under the Canada Labour Code, Part II, subsection 146(1), by Richard Fader, Counsel for Correctional Service Canada, against a direction issued by Health and Safety Officer (HSO) Chris Mattson following his investigation of the work refusal by Mr. Bernard Jones.

[2] According to HSO Mattson's report, on January 12, 2004, Mr. Jones refused to work because the maximum security inmates where out in a yard, that was divided in two, without sufficient surveillance. Management instructed the guard to observe the inmates through windows that only allowed a small portion of the yard to be visible.

[3] Further to his investigation, HSO Mattson issued a direction to the employer under paragraphs 145.(1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code as follows:

"The said health and safety officer is of the opinion that the following provision(s) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, is being contravened:

Section 124
To improve the observation of inmates while in Assessment Special Needs and Mental Health Cloister yard area.

You are HEREBY DIRECTED, pursuant to paragraph 145(1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, within the time specified by the health and safety officer, to take steps immediately to ensure that the contravention does not continue or reoccur.

[4] On March 31, 2005, Mel Sater, Counsel for Correctional Service Canada, sent a letter to this Office indicating that Correctional Service Canada was withdrawing its appeal of the direction.

[5] Considering the written request to withdraw the appeal and having reviewed the file, I accept and declare this case closed.

Decision No.: 06-038

Appellant: Correctional Service Canada

Respondent: UCCO-SACC-CSN

Key Words: Withdrawal, observation of inmates

Summary:

On January 20, 2004, Correctional Service Canada appealed a direction issued following a work refusal. On March 31, 2005, Correctional Service Canada withdrew its appeal of the direction. The case is therefore close.