A Ministry of Labour inspector has ordered an Ontario school board to revise its workplace violence policy, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board has suspended that Order, calling it “unclear”.
The inspector attended at a high school after a worker complained about two incidents at the school. The inspector concluded that the school had failed to provide workers with “information and instruction concerning persons with a history of violent behaviour”, as required by section 32.0.5(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which section was enacted by Bill 168. The inspector issued an Order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act requiring the school board to “develop arrangements to provide information to workers” regarding the risk of workplace violence from a person with a history of violent behaviour.
The school board appealed the Order. It argued that the inspector had not specified the basic facts underlining the “two examples” that were mentioned in the Order.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board suspended the Order. It held that the Order essentially required the school board to comply with the OHSA, which it was already obligated to do. Also, the school board could be prejudiced if it were required to “comply with an order that is unclear on its face”. Finally, the OLRB doubted that deference should be given to the Ministry of Labour inspector when the Order was unclear on its face.
This case demonstrates that where Ministry of Labour inspectors do not state the facts underlying their compliance Orders, the employer may have a viable challenge to the Order. Also, the OLRB will be more likely to suspend an Order when it simply repeats obligations in the OHSA.
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board v Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, 2014 CanLII 13515 (ON LRB)