Reference no: EM133027578

Question 1: Ontario's health and safety legislation is based on an internal responsibility system. Explain this term. In your opinion, is it an effective approach to ensuring safety in the workplace? Give reasons for your answer.

Question 2: Name and explain the three core worker rights under Ontario's OHSA.

Question 3: Explain the due diligence defence. What steps can employers take to establish this defence?

Question 4: You are the human resources manager in a small manufacturing firm. An operations supervisor, Habrim, comes to you with a problem. The plant has just started working on a rush order from a major customer and now one of his production workers (Bruce) has refused to work because he says that his machinery is unsafe. Habrim checked the machine and it looked safe to him. He then contacted the Ministry of Labour to further investigate the refusal, but he is wondering whether, in the meantime, he can get another employee to work on the machine that Bruce says is unsafe. Advise Habrim by explaining to him what the law requires in these circumstances.

Question 5: Wayne was hired as a truck driver for a steel transportation company in August 2012. In early November 2012, he brought his truck in for service and, on the way home, he noticed that his replacement truck was faulty: the steering wheel was loose, the mirrors had cracks in them, there was no engine brake, and fuel was leaking from the caps of both fuel tanks. The next morning, Wayne called the dispatcher to say he would not drive the replacement truck to haul steel because it was unsafe. The dispatcher asked him to haul one final load back to Hamilton, which he refused to do, and his supervisor then called and, after a heated discussion, told him he was fired. Wayne filed a complaint, saying this was a reprisal for his exercising his right to refuse unsafe work. The employer countered that Wayne was still a probationary employee (and therefore could be terminated for any reason) and, in addition, he was fired for cause. The employer claimed Wayne swore at the dispatcher when he called in about the replacement truck (which Wayne denied) and that Wayne had failed to return another driver's CB radio in a truck he had started using. Whose arguments do you think would be successful-Wayne's or the employer's?

Question 6: The employer was a reconditioning centre that cleaned the interior and exterior of vehicles for leasing companies. Tom (aged 18), a recently hired cleaning employee, did not have a driver's licence and the employer made it clear-both verbally and through its safety policy-that employees without a licence were not allowed to drive any of the vehicles. Despite these warnings, Tom drove a car into the wash bay, where he collided with another vehicle. This set off a chain of events, which ultimately resulted in another employee breaking both arms. The employer was charged and convicted for failing to provide information, instruction, or supervision to a worker in the safe operation and parking of vehicles. It received a $50,000 fine, plus a 25 percent victim surcharge. The employer appealed the conviction. What do you think the employer's argument would be? What do you think a court would decide? Support your answer.

Question 7: Frank was an employee with 13 years of service and a previously clean disciplinary record who was dismissed for starting a fight when he punched his coworker and continued to kick him after he fell to the ground. (Their argument was workrelated and started when the co-worker accused Frank of "not pulling his weight.") Frank grieved his dismissal. What are the arguments for the employer? The employee? Who do you think would be successful and why?

Question 8: Two millwrights, Dave (6 years' service) and Dean (14 years' service), were engaging in a friendly, consensual bout of wrestling in the workplace when their supervisor walked into the shop. A small crowd had gathered to watch. When their supervisor told them to stop, they did so immediately, and no one was hurt. The room where the incident took place had concrete floors and various tools and pieces of machinery. After another employee complained, saying someone could have been hurt, their supervisor reported the incident to senior management in an email. (About a year before this incident, the supervisor had issued a memo to staff warning that horseplay had to stop, or else disciplinary action would be taken.) Management decided to impose a one-day unpaid suspension on both Dave and Dean for horseplay. The workplace violence policy prohibited fighting and horseplay; it also stated that "all reported incidents will be investigated," and that employees will be disciplined if they have been found to have engaged in workplace violence. A copy of the policy was posted in the workplace and both Dave and Dean had received training on it. The union grieved Dave and Dean's one-day unpaid suspension, arguing that while the horseplay was inappropriate, given all the circumstances, only a verbal or written warning should have been given. Was the one-day unpaid suspension too harsh? What are the union's arguments? The employers? What do you think the arbitrator decided? Support your position.

Question 9: Ana was a nurse who alleged that she had been mistreated by a doctor in the hospital where she had worked for many years. This included being yelled at and demeaned in front of colleagues. When she complained to her employer, not only did the employer fail to deal with the situation, but it also effectively demoted her. Eventually, she was diagnosed by a medical professional with a psychological adjustment disorder resulting from workplace stressors, and she left her job and applied for WSIA benefits. Would Ana be entitled to WSIA benefits in these circumstances?

Question 10: Eric suffered a nervous breakdown after he was terminated from the job he had held for almost 13 years. Hearing about recent amendments to the WSIA, Eric decides to apply for WSIA benefits based on the traumatic mental stress he experienced as a result of his termination. Based on these facts, will his application be successful?