Federal labour inspector takes his department to court for obstruction

Union charges political interference in failure to enforce health, safety, and fire standards at Burlington call centre

By: Paul Weinberg

  BURLINGTON: A federal labour inspector has taken his own department to court because of claims his own department impeded him from doing his job enforcing workplace standards - including fire safety - in an expanding call-centre.
  Officials with the inspector's union claim political interference after the inspector was allegedly hindered and obstructed from doing his job.
 

The inspector ordered Cogeco to remedy 18 separate health and safety violations, including fire protection procedures, control of hazardous substances, and cleanliness violations. The company later complained that the inspector had been 'rude' and 'confrontational'.

  "The employer [Cogeco Cable Canada Inc.] is a well known Liberal supporter and the law firm being used to file the appeal [to federal Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw], McCarthy Tètrault, is also a very well-known Liberal supporter," says Denis St.-Jean, health and safety officer for the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).
  St.-Jean's union represents inspectors or labour affairs officers employed by HRDC's Labour Program. They are responsible for enforcing health and safety, fair wages in federal contracts and labour standards provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which covers federally regulated workplaces.
  One of the officers, Rod Noel, took the unusual step on December 31, 1999, of launching a legal action (or "direction" in HRDC Labour parlance) to force his own department to cease "hindering and obstructing" his ability to carry out his duties.
  Because HRDC-Labour is appealing Noel's direction before an HRDC regional safety officer, Noel cannot discuss details of the case.
  Freer to comment is Vic Morden, national representative and organizer for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), who believes Noel's job is in jeopardy. Morden says that his contact with workers in the call centre has made him aware that unsafe conditions do exist there.
 

"There is a huge amount of tension there between the way that the law ought to be enforced in the eyes of the inspectors or the officers and the way that the compliance policy is interpreted by the employer." - David Bennett, National Safety and Environment Director, Canadian Labour Congress

  A few years ago as part of an unsuccessful 1997/98 union organizing drive, Morden was leafleting the Cogeco call centre in Burlington when he met Joan Ellis, a customer service employee. She has since gone on a doctor-prescribed sick leave after she began to suffer from chronic pain in her arms and hands.
  In her job, Ellis sometimes faced angry customers whose service had been cut. "There have been bomb threats and other forms of death threats, in terms of 'I'm going to come in with a gun and blow everybody away'," reports Morden. (Due to her own stress, Ellis declined to participate in an interview).
  Ellis was upset with what she saw as a dangerous workplace at Cogeco, including poor emergency evacuation procedures, which she allegedly witnessed personally. She reported her concerns to HRDC Labour. Assigned to the case, Rod Noel conducted a series of unannounced visits, starting in January 1999. On one, an HRDC fire safety specialist accompanied him.
  Eventually, Noel ordered Cogeco to embark upon remedial actions in 18 separate instances of violations of the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code including fire protection procedures, control of hazardous substances and cleanliness violations.
  At the top of Noel's list of concerns was the company s failure to co-operate with him or respond to recommendations.
  The Burlington facility contains about 200 employees and is currently being expanded. It also includes a film studio, where props and various chemicals, including spray paints and fixers, are kept.
 

One Cogeco call centre employee told union organizers of bomb threats and other forms of death threats

  Failure to comply with an inspector's orders can carry penalties ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 under the Canada Labour Code.
  Kelly Bird, vice-president of human resources for Cogeco, did not return Straight Goods' telephone calls.
  But she complained in a company appeal issued against Noel's orders that the HRDC Labour safety officer had been "rude" and "confrontational" in his work. She also questioned the fact that Noel arrived unannounced in all his visits. St.-Jean of PSAC says this is standard practice among officers investigating "high-risk" safety violations.
  One day before a scheduled Sept. 23, 1999 HRDC Labour hearing by a Regional Safety Officer, Cogeco suddenly withdrew its legal appeal. Instead, the company switched law firms (from Fraser Milner to Canada's largest law firm, McCarthy TJtrault) and launched a direct appeal for assistance from Minister Bradshaw. Why did Cogeco change its tack? The company is not talking, but Vic Morden suspects that the company realized it had no legal case and instead sought a political route to get Noel off its back. Also, the planned presence of Ellis and the CEP at the September hearing, speculates Morden, might have made Cogeco management wary of giving the union a platform to reach out to workers more effectively than it had done during the organizing drive.
  Noel was temporarily suspended from the Cogeco file in the fall of 1999. Another HRDC Labour safety officer visited the Burlington call centre, but this time told management of his impending visit. By the end of 1999, Noel's district manager at the time, Trevor Mills, had closed the Cogeco file. It was at that point that Noel launched his case of hindrance and obstruction against HRDC Labour.
  Denis St-Jean of PSAC says health and safety inspectors like Noel are under pressure by HRDC Labour to persuade and educate employers through agreements for voluntary compliance (AVCs) rather than by imposing binding orders. He says the employees' performance assessment is based on whether they have reached a departmental goal of 90 per cent AVCs versus 10 per cent directions in responding to complaints.
  But David Bennett, national safety and environment director for the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), says voluntary agreements have no legal basis within the Canada Labour Code. "There is a huge amount of tension there between the way that the law ought to be enforced in the eyes of the inspectors or the officers and the way that the compliance policy is interpreted by the employer."
  At the moment, amendments to the second part of the Canada Labour Code, involving health and safety, are going through the House of Commons but the HRDC Labour has resisted labour movement calls to move away from AVCs.
  A spokesperson for Bradshaw's office told Straight Goods that the minister couldn't comment until regional safety officer Serge Cadieux renders a decision.

Paul Weinberg is a Toronto-based freelance writer.

[ Front Page ]