3 total
Board issues declarations and orders incorporating parties' settlement regarding inmate drug use and search procedures.
The applicants, OPSEU and Deborah Haring, brought an application under section 61(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act against the Ministry of the Solicitor General & Correctional Services and an Inspector.
The parties engaged in mediation and reached Minutes of Settlement addressing health and safety concerns arising from illicit drug use by inmates at the Maplehurst Complex.
The Board issued declarations and orders incorporating the settlement, which required the employer to develop operating procedures for suspected drug use, report quarterly on the effectiveness of unit searches, and consult with the Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee.
The Board remained seized of any issues regarding the interpretation of the settlement.
Parties agreed to have the presiding Vice-Chair mediate ongoing occupational health and safety proceedings.
During a lengthy hearing involving three related proceedings under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the parties agreed to have the presiding Vice-Chair act as a mediator.
The mediation was agreed to on the condition that all discussions would be privileged and that the Vice-Chair would not be disqualified from continuing to hear and decide the matters if a settlement was not reached.
The Board scheduled a mediation session and set further hearing dates in the event the matters did not settle.
Preliminary motions to dismiss health and safety appeals regarding jail staffing denied.
The appellants appealed decisions made by Ministry of Labour inspectors regarding work refusals and staffing assignments at the Whitby Jail under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The responding parties brought preliminary motions to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that they were premature and did not establish a prima facie case.
The Board dismissed the preliminary motions, finding that orders had been made or refused by the inspectors, and that the appellants had established an arguable case regarding the application of the Act to the staffing decisions.
