A prison switches from cloth chairs to more durable, moulded plastic models. But it keeps some padded
cloth chairs for workers to use when on the computer. A corrections officer works his first shift after the
plastic chairs are installed. At the end of the shift, he complains about pain in his lower back and down his
right leg. He gives prison officials a doctor’s note saying that he has a degenerative disc disease that would
be aggravated by sitting in the plastic chair. But the prison still assigns him to work in an area of the facility
where he’d have to use the plastic chairs. The corrections officer refuses to work. An OHS official visits the
prison, examines the doctor’s note and reviews an ergonomic study of the chairs that concluded that they
don’t pose a hazard for the average worker. The OHS official finds that the plastic chairs endanger the
corrections officer’s health and orders the prison not to force the officer to sit in them.
QUESTION
Is the OHS official’s order justified?
A.
No, because the plastic chairs are safe for average workers to use.
B.
No, because the plastic chairs aren’t unsafe—they’re only uncomfortable.
C.
Yes, because the prison has padded chairs available and thus must let the corrections officer use
them instead of the plastic chairs.
D.
Yes, because using the plastic chairs is harmful to the corrections officer’s health.
The correct answer is:
D. The prison can’t force the corrections officer to sit in the plastic chairs because it would aggravate his
back condition.
EXPLANATION
This situation is based on an actual case from Ontario in which a corrections officer refused to sit in a plastic
chair because it aggravated his back condition. After investigating the work refusal, the OHS official ordered
the prison to accommodate the officer and not force him to use the plastic chairs. The prison appealed the
order, arguing that the chairs were safe for the average worker.
The OHS Adjudicator ruled that the official’s order was warranted. It acknowledged that the ergonomic
study concluded that the chairs were safe for the average worker. But it noted that the issue wasn’t
whether the chairs were generally safe for workers to use but whether they were safe for this particular
worker to use. The OHS Act says nothing about “average workers”; instead, it says that a worker can refuse
to do work if he has reasonable grounds to believe that work is likely to “endanger himself.” The
adjudicator found that it was reasonable for the OHS official to conclude that use of the plastic chairs was
likely to endanger the corrections officer’s health and so order the prison to accommodate him.
WHY WRONG ANSWERS ARE WRONG
A is wrong because when evaluating a work refusal, employers must consider the refusing worker’s
particular physical sensitivities or limitations. In this case, the corrections officer has a degenerative disc
disease that’s aggravated by sitting in the plastic chairs. So although the average worker could safely use
these chairs, the corrections officer who engaged in this particular refusal couldn’t.
B is wrong because workers can refuse work if it would endanger their safety or health. The corrections
officer’s use of the plastic chairs isn’t a safety issue. For example, he’s not claiming that the chairs are
rickety and liable to fall apart when used. And although complaints about comfort aren’t enough to justify a
work refusal, they may raise health issues. In fact, the corrections officer in this case isn’t simply
complaining that the chairs are uncomfortable. He’s claiming that sitting in them endangers his health by
hurting his back and leg. And health concerns are legitimate grounds for a work refusal.
C is wrong because the fact that padded chairs are available doesn’t necessarily mean that the corrections
officer has the right to use them. In other words, if the OHS official had concluded that the plastic chairs
didn’t pose a health hazard to the corrections officer, it couldn’t order the prison to let the officer use
padded chairs simply because they’re available. The official had authority to issue such an order only
because the plastic chairs do pose a threat to the corrections officer’s health. And the official could order
the prison not to make him use the plastic chairs even if these were the only kind of chairs it had. However,
since the prison does have padded chairs, complying with the order should be quite simple.
SHOW YOUR LAWYER
R. v. Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre, [1995] O.O.H.S.A.D. No. 31, Aug. 16, 1995