Labour Relations
Appeal, cross-appeal from Federal Court decision (2007 FC 1362) partly allowing judicial review application of Appeals Officer (Occupational Health and Safety) decision passenger-side mail delivery constituting ergonomic hazard representing “danger” within meaning of Canada Labour Code, s. 122(1) —Respondent, rural mail carrier, suffering from back injury, refusing to work under Code, s. 128 on grounds effecting passenger-side mail delivery unsafe, creating traffic safety hazards—Finding of “danger” under Code, s. 122(1) requiring determination of in what circumstances potential hazard could reasonably be expected to cause injury and reasonable possibility such circumstances will occur in future—Appeals Officer’s conclusion passenger-side window delivery constituting “danger”, could reasonably be expected to cause respondent injury, reasonable—Under Code, s. 128(2)(b), cannot refuse to work if danger “normal condition of employment”, but expression excluding method used to perform job—Appeals Officer’s conclusion danger respondent facing not essential characteristic of job but resulting from methodology used to perform job, that danger existing despite respondent’s ability to alter movements, reasonable—Appeal dismissed.
Canada Post Corp. v. Pollard (A-53-08, 2008 FCA 305, Décary J.A., judgment dated October 10, 2008, 15 pp.)