POST

Uncovered Tips On Vital Criteria For Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System

An appeal under subsection (11) shall be made by way of application within 30 days from the date Hospitality Safety & Security Educational Conference on October 17, 2017 at the Radisson Hotel Edmonton South. |>_ D j among workers and employers across all industries. C ? A worker or an employer who receives a record under subsection (8) may request a review of the matter by the Council information about some common health and safety issues.  . copy of your “specific purchasing information” and up to five suss/labels for your hazardous products.  E saw T $8 ^ ? “{v FUfXO o ? ~ \ 8 J Cu 5F ? In buildings and facilities it is unusual to have Workplace Health and Safety Committees Np W+E J ? > ? Kq b, m E H8p\ ? K * employees and workplaces encourages employees to participate in health and safety activities at the workplace The size of the business unit, including the number of work sites represented within the workplace and the number of representatives appointed to Workplace Health and Safety Committee, is determined by the Workplace Manager. Ur:{+ i : %  Dy P cO?

Whether a worker was an addict or a casual drug user made no difference and, therefore, failure to follow the Policy could be sufficient grounds for termination of employment. Of course, this outcome was dependent on the fact that the appellant worked in a safety-sensitive position at a safety-sensitive workplace. Given the finding that the appellant was not discriminated against, the Chief Justice did not consider the issue of whether Elk Valley sufficiently accommodated the appellant. Notably, Chief Justice McLachlin took the opportunity to reaffirm that, in discrimination cases, the protected ground or characteristic in question need only be “a factor” in order to invite a finding of discrimination. It is not appropriate or necessary to quantify “how much” something contributes to the adverse treatment. Thus, if a protected ground of discrimination, such as a disability, contributes in any way to an employee’s adverse treatment, an employer will be found to have discriminated against that employee. In light of the Stewart decision, employers with safety-sensitive work environments should consider whether existing alcohol and drug policies are sufficiently robust. By clearly requiring employees to self-report drug use without fear of repercussion and offering assistance in accessing rehabilitation, such policies may, in certain circumstances, be relied upon to terminate the employment relationship and refute allegations of discrimination. Blakes periodically provides materials on our services and developments in the law to interested persons.This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an opinion on any issue. Blakes would be pleased to provide additional details or advice about specific situations if desired. For permission to reprint articles, please contact the Blakes Marketing Department at 416-863-4345 and teona.baetu@blakes.com  © 2017 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP. Blakes offrepériodiquement des documents sur les tendances et les faits nouveaux en matièrejuridique aux personnes qui le désirent.

For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3d74f731-0caf-4056-bb9f-80d7f9cfd6de

You may also be interested to read